EgyptSearch Forums
  Ancient Egypt and Egyptology
  Hope For Africa! (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Hope For Africa!
Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 03 December 2004 08:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Globalist: Signs that the worst may be over in Africa

Roger Cohen International Herald Tribune Saturday, December 4, 2004 JOHANNESBURG
<http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?key=JOHANNESBURG>

Say "Africa" and what comes to mind? The genocide in Darfur, Sudan, or the HIV-AIDS epidemic affecting some 30 million Africans, or the violence in the Ivory Coast, a country once considered an oasis of calm on a calamity-stricken continent? Or perhaps nothing quite so specific, just a sense of a tragic place still justifying Kurtz's exclamation - "The horror! The horror!" - in a book written more than a century ago, Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"? At a conference hosted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in South Africa last month, Barbara Lee, an African-American congresswoman from California, said that in her experience a majority of Americans think Africa is a country. The fact is that the more than 50 states of Africa suffer both from outsiders' ignorance and stereotypical images of disaster that fail to reflect change. The century that has just begun will be an African century. It may not be <i>the</i> African century, for the rise of China and India will make Asia's claim on the next hundred years compelling, but an era of significant African development has almost certainly begun. It is long overdue. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only major region of the world to have grown poorer over the past quarter-century. "There has been an astounding transformation since the end of the cold war," said Greg Mills, the national director of the South African Institute of International Affairs. "Democracies have spread, acceptance of liberal reform agendas has grown, Africans know more about each other than ever before. But we had slumped so far behind since 1960, that all this does not make much impression." It should. While fighting in the Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe's downward spiral make headlines, conflicts in other countries have moved toward resolution: Angola, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burundi. As Jendayi Frazer, the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, remarked, "More wars were resolved in the last few years than started up." That may be a modest measure of progress. But deeper forces are at work that suggest the worst of Africa's postcolonial political agony is over. Military coups, and there were about 180 of them since the late 1950s, have become exceptional. Peaceful democratic change has been achieved in countries including Nigeria and Kenya. South Africa, which accounts for about 40 percent of the economy in sub-Saharan Africa, is investing more than $1 billion annually across the region, bringing new infrastructure and expertise. Companies listed on the Johannesburg stock exchange now employ 70,000 Africans outside South Africa. Africans, in other words, are starting to work together to secure economic progress and resolve conflicts. The African Union, established in 1999, and the New Partnership for Africa's Development of the South African president, Thabo Mbeki, are having an impact. When French soldiers are killed in the Ivory Coast and France hits back by wiping out the country's air force, as happened last month, it is Mbeki who steps in to try to resolve things. Last month, 15 African presidents signed a declaration pledging to promote peace and security in the Great Lakes region. Such efforts do not move ahead in a straight, smooth line, but their very existence is meaningful. Several forces are pushing in the direction of African growth. They include a commodities boom spurred by wild Chinese demand, rising American interest in a continent that is an increasingly important source of oil, and demographics. "China currently wants every raw material known to man, and Africa is a treasure chest of such materials," said David Hale, a Chicago-based economist. Guinea has a third of the world's bauxite, South Africa more than 85 percent of global platinum reserves, Congo large reserves of copper. Not for nothing did Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, tour Africa earlier this year. African oil production is dominated by Nigeria and Angola, but new fields in Equatorial Guinea, Mauritania and Chad are coming on stream, and U.S. imports of oil from Africa are set to rise sharply over the next few years. This trend has reinforced American interest in the continent, as has concern that when African states fail, they become sources of terrorism. Hale pointed out that the population of Africa will be the world's youngest in the 21st century. Today Europe's population is about 727 million and Africa's about 793 million. By 2050, Europe's population will have shrunk to 603 million and Africa's grown to just over 2 billion. Either this fast-growing population will be a source of expansion or redoubled chaos. That will depend in large measure on whether African governance, long weak and riddled with corruption, can be improved. Even one of the strongest governments, that of Mbeki's South Africa, remains vulnerable to the instability inherent in 40 percent unemployment, rampant AIDS and enduring racial tensions. If South Africa's extraordinary post-apartheid transition goes awry, Africa's dawning prospects will be threatened. In reinforcing good governance, economic growth and the rule of law, the United States has a critical role to play. Western assistance needs to be tied to government reform because only with clear rules will foreign investment flow in. The limits of aid have been demonstrated by squandered billions of dollars over several decades. Efforts to open trade, like the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the United States, which has removed tariffs on many goods, have proved more effective. How to address Africa's problems is the focus of the Commission for Africa set up this year by Tony Blair, who has promised that Africa will be a priority of the British and U.S. presidencies of the G-8 group of leading industrial nations over the next two years. "Africa is the scar on the conscience of the world," Blair said. The British prime minister was right. But before Western solutions are dreamed up, it should be recognized that Africans are beginning to put their own house in order. A change in the developed world's mind-set is needed, one that sees the hope rather than the horror in a different Africa, as much as any shift in policy. E-mail: rcohen@iht.com

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 03 December 2004 08:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
{They include a commodities boom spurred by wild Chinese demand, rising American interest in a continent that is an increasingly important source of oil, and demographics. "China currently wants every raw material known to man, and Africa is a treasure chest of such materials," said David Hale, a Chicago-based economist.}

{The century that has just begun will be an African century. It may not be <i>the</i> African century, for the rise of China and India will make Asia's claim on the next hundred years compelling, but an era of significant African development has almost certainly begun.}

{Hale pointed out that the population of Africa will be the world's youngest in the 21st century. Today Europe's population is about 727 million and Africa's about 793 million. By 2050, Europe's population will have shrunk to 603 million and Africa's grown to just over 2 billion.}

IP: Logged

supercar
Member

Posts: 1079
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 03 December 2004 09:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for supercar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There are definitely signs of improvement on the continent, with many armed conflicts, as pointed out earlier, having been resolved and government reforms in various nations. However, Africa's problems are tied with what is happening in other parts of the globe, and it is much more complex than what is stated in the intro notes. The British Prime Minister cynicism isn't lost on me. Unless the underlying forces behind Africa's various problems are fully understood by most importantly the majority of Africans and then others around the globe, the great visible successes we all hope to see happen sooner on the continent, is going to be difficult to come by. Here are some interesting notes worth reading:
Justifying The Role Of Imperialism In Africa by Ann Talbot of WSWS.org, in response to Carol Lancaster's book Aid to Africa: So Much to Do, So Little Done.

IP: Logged

Orionix
Member

Posts: 457
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 03 December 2004 09:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Orionix     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Africa is a wealthy continent, abundent in natural minerals but the people are quite poor. I hope the US will do something about it because you're the only one who have the money.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 03 December 2004 09:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thought Writes:

I think given Africa's large demographic growth and the projected size of their markets it cannot be ignored.

IP: Logged

Orionix
Member

Posts: 457
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 03 December 2004 09:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Orionix     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
^^^
True but there are wealthy Africans. Those are usually attacked by the poor ones. There is political instability in Africa.

The wealthy ones are usually well educated so they have all the means to migrate to the US or Canada later on.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 03 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

ausar
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: Feb 2003

posted 04 December 2004 01:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ausar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
African intellectuals migration to Canada and Africa is one of the main reasons why Africa cannot develop their countries. It's called Brain Drain and it hurts Africans more so than helps them. Contrary to popular media,AIDS is not a problem in all parts of Africa. You notice the Islamic countries within Africa versus the Christian countries have less AIDS. One such country that has taken effective measures to combat the AIDS cirsis is Senegal.

The main areas in Africa that are unstable is Sierre Leone and Liberia. These two areas were resettledby ex-slaves by British and America respectively,and this today is still the area of unrest. These area hinder the development and growth of Africa. The other area is in the Congo which is really over a prescious mineral called coltanite. People are being forced to mine this mineral as we speak.


Something I fear in the future in my backyard is the battle over the use of the Nile. The Egyptian goverment currently are keeping the Nile water from starving Ethiopian people,and this is something that might in the future cause major wars over the waters.

The article failed to mention countries like Senegal that have held a democratic goverment since the French left. Senegal has went through two presidents without a blood civil war,and continues to export rice to Taiwan.


IP: Logged

supercar
Member

Posts: 1079
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04 December 2004 03:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for supercar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
African intellectuals migration to Canada and Africa is one of the main reasons why Africa cannot develop their countries. It's called Brain Drain and it hurts Africans more so than helps them. Contrary to popular media,AIDS is not a problem in all parts of Africa. You notice the Islamic countries within Africa versus the Christian countries have less AIDS. One such country that has taken effective measures to combat the AIDS cirsis is Senegal.

The main areas in Africa that are unstable is Sierre Leone and Liberia. These two areas were resettledby ex-slaves by British and America respectively,and this today is still the area of unrest. These area hinder the development and growth of Africa. The other area is in the Congo which is really over a prescious mineral called coltanite. People are being forced to mine this mineral as we speak.


Something I fear in the future in my backyard is the battle over the use of the Nile. The Egyptian goverment currently are keeping the Nile water from starving Ethiopian people,and this is something that might in the future cause major wars over the waters.

The article failed to mention countries like Senegal that have held a democratic goverment since the French left. Senegal has went through two presidents without a blood civil war,and continues to export rice to Taiwan.


I agree with the brain drain issue. There are Africans elswhere with more powerful economies, contributing to the further development of those economies. Again, this ties to the root of problems I hinted on earlier.

Uganda too, is one country that had some problems with AIDS spread. It is amazing how they've made such a huge improvement, that AIDS is basically not an issue in that country anymore. The Ugandans took the initiatives on this one, when all else failed. Now, they are trying to export their example to other areas, where this problem is still an issue. If reforms in Africa are to become more effective in a relatively shorter period of time, reforms in other global arenas also have to take place.

IP: Logged

Orionix
Member

Posts: 457
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 04 December 2004 04:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Orionix     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How did they really solve AIDS in Uganda? I heard that there are vaccines for this.

IP: Logged

supercar
Member

Posts: 1079
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04 December 2004 05:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for supercar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
How did they really solve AIDS in Uganda? I heard that there are vaccines for this.

Various awareness programs geared to youngsters and women. Condoms weren't good enough. Medical imput has also helped, but not the main reason for the control of AIDS in Uganda. Social relations became the key to addressing the problem

Uganda's HIV/AIDS prevalence rate down

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04 December 2004 06:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To: Thought 2

Despite being well-intentioned the piece on Africa contains somme questionable claims. First the population of Africa is approximately 850 million and growing at a clip of some 3% per annum. Nigeria has a population of some 130 million people; Egypt has approx. 70 million people, Ethiopia has 70 million, Congo(Kinshasa) has 60 million, South Africa has 46 million. Sudan has 36 million people.

There was mention of Sierra Leone(5 million) and Libera(3 million) as places being settled by ex-slaves. This is not accurate. The settlement of Liberia by blacks began in the 1820's and Liberia became independent in the 1840's. Slavery in America was abolished in 1865. So the blacks who settled Liberia were already free. Most were born free. Also the vast majority of the blacks who settled Liberia and Sierra leone were "recaptives" that is people who were rescued from captive ships by British warships after England abolished slavery in 1806. Such persons never made it across the Atlantic. They were later resettled in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The difference between Liberia and Sierra leone is that Sierra leone was initially settled by blacks who initially fought with the British during the American War of Independence. After defeat in that war those blacks fled with he British to England. They did not like the climate and conditions so the solution was to send them to West Africa to form a colony. But the resettlement numbers in Sierra Leone and Liberia were not that small to begin with. The reasons for the unrest are complex and not much related to those who resettled the area.

The wars in Africa have been a problem but there are/were just as many wars in Asia. Africa has 53 states(too many in my opinion) and not more than 10% of the population was ever involved in war at any one time.

There was reference to Darfur as "genocide". That's not accurate at all. The people in the camps fled from the conflict between the Sudan government and some rebel groups. It was just the Western press that exploited the whole thing for political reasons. Darfur is not worse than Falluja about which the Western media have been relatively mute.

AIDS is another propaganda story. The number of 30 million which the Western press loves to scream baout is based on wild estimates with very little testing ever done. Furthermore the symptoms for AIDS are identical for a host of other ailments. The point is that it costs too much to test for AIDS in Africa so most diagnoses rely on just looking at the person. In fact some unscrupulous Health ministries inflate or even fabricate AIDS numbers in order to get international AIDS money. And aliments like malaria are just shoved over into the AIDS column. A so-called pandemic does not last 20 years. Normally, for diseases with high morbidity there is rapid ascent followed by a levelling off then a decline--for obvious reasons. The website VIRUSMYTH.ORG contains a wealth of information about the false claims made by the Western media about AIDS in Africa. Note parenthetically that Africa conforms the least in the world to the major risk factors for AIDS: male homosexuality, IV drug use with needle exchange, and easy travel. Malaria affects many more people than AIDS yet the big drug companies, their Western government patrons and the condom manufacturers see it in their interest to keep the hype alive. There's much money in a disease with no cure. Also do a google on South African journalist Rian Malam who travelled back to South Africa after years abroad to investigate the AIDS situation there. He found out that the whole thing was massively overblown and hyped.

Sure, many skilled Africans travel to the West to earn more money but Africa still graduates engineers, medical doctors, chemists, computer scientists, etc. In fact a major figure in the computer world is Philip Emeagwali from Nigeria--do a google on him. Unfortunately, he resides in the U.S.

India and China were mentioned as nations making strides economically. China, yes, but India no. Most Africans are better off economically than most Indians and don't forget that India has a population of more than 1 billion.


IP: Logged

Orionix
Member

Posts: 457
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 04 December 2004 07:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Orionix     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well there is still violence in Sudan (Darfur):
http://allafrica.com/stories/200412030167.html

According to the WFB south Africa is economically the best country in Africa sofar.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 04 December 2004 09:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
To: Thought 2

Despite being well-intentioned the piece on Africa contains somme questionable claims. First the population of Africa is approximately 850 million and growing at a clip of some 3% per annum.


Thought Writes:

Where can I find supporting data?

IP: Logged

Keino
Member

Posts: 373
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 05 December 2004 01:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Keino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Where can I find supporting data?



Here's a link to CIA world factbook. I'm sure some diligent member can add up the total population of Africa. Egypt is over 76 million as of July 2004.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/eg.html

Here is what the CIA factbook says about the world's resources: the rapid depletion of nonrenewable mineral resources, the depletion of forest areas and wetlands, the extinction of animal and plant species, and the deterioration in air and water quality (especially in Eastern Europe, the former USSR, and China) pose serious long-term problems that governments and peoples are only beginning to address.

[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 05 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 05 December 2004 09:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
FOR KEINO:
But why the CIA Sourcebook? The same Western mindset that produced the offical arguments and "evidence" that most Westerners appeal to when they want to deny the Africanity of ancient Egypt is at work when "facts" are produced and disseminated about Africa. The population of Africa is surmised only when there are periodic population censuses in the different countries. The question is how accurate are such censususes. Another way to determine Africa's population is to extrapolate from votes counted during elections. And that again could be largely guesswork. Another way to do it is to look at the fertility of women in the rural areas and towns for a number of countries then do an extrapolation from the last censuses taken. But in general I would take the facts in the official CIA spookbook--why would they make the real facts public?--with a big grain of salt. I guess the best answer to the question about "evidence" is work with the 3 largest countries approximated populations and extrapolate from there: Nigeria, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Could just these 3 countries have as much as 30% of the population of all of Africa?

FOR ORIONIX:

Sure, there's a war between the government and rebel groups in the Sudan--a country as big as India in size. And the Western media constantly informs us of such for political reasons. But in Brazil blacks are killed every day by the police in the favelas in Rio and Salvador but it never reaches CNN. There is a fairly accurate urban murder rate for the USA and Brazil but those big tolls are never excitedly reported in the Western media.

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 05 December 2004 08:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
by the way,not everybody is poor in africa.the growing middleclass could be a great help and let us not let the rich off the hook either.sudan population is about 39 to 40 million by now,nigeria close to 140 million,and south africa 47 to 48 million,because it was 44 million in 2001 and it grows to th 1 million everyyear and new citizens come in as well from other african states,but the non-citizens is around 4 to 5 million,so south africa real is around 52 to 53 million,but they do not count non-citizens anymore that that is way they have at 47 to 48 million.

The unemployment rate in south africa by the way is around 30% or less the last time i check.IT is still high and i heard the numbers are going down.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 05 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 06 December 2004 10:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
CORRECTION:

I stated in a previous post that the resettlement numbers of blacks to Liberia and Sierra Leone "were not that small to begin with". I meant to say that "they were quite small to begin with". What should be borne in mind though is that a major portion of those resettled Africans were not resettled from the Americas but from further down the West African coast. Note by contrast that many of the Yoruba who live in Lagos, Nigeria descend from Yoruba and Hausa captives repatriated from Brazil after rebellions there. The same applies to Benin Republic.

IP: Logged

multisphinx
Member

Posts: 133
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 10 December 2004 05:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for multisphinx     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think the problem all over Africa is corruption. Corruption happens everywhere in Africa. Africa is a wealthy continent yes!, but the reason the wealth is not spread is because of corruption.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 11 December 2004 08:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
December 12, 2004
Africans Get a Cold Shoulder as Libya Turns to the West
By CRAIG S. SMITH

RIPOLI, Libya, Dec. 11 - When Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi proposed a borderless United States of Africa several years ago, Kofi Bafoo in Ghana answered his call.
Like hundreds of thousands of other young men living in the impoverished countries along the Sahara's southern fringe, Mr. Bafoo left for this oil-rich promised land with hopes of building a new life on the Mediterranean coast.
It did not work out that way. Few of the estimated one million Africans who flooded into Libya found jobs in the country's feeble economy, so Mr. Bafoo and thousands of other young African men set their sights on European shores. Libya, it seems, was happy to let them go.
"Until 2003, every day boats were leaving," Mr. Bafoo said, limping on a foot injured recently while running from the police. "The government knew about it, but they didn't care."
The problem began a decade ago. Colonel Qaddafi, frustrated by his failures to build pan-Arab unity and the Arab world's lack of support for him in the face of United Nations sanctions imposed in 1992 to press Libya to deliver suspects in the bombing of a PanAm flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, turned his attention south. After African countries agreed to defy the sanctions by resuming flights to Libya in 1998, Colonel Qaddafi renamed the country's Voice of the Greater Arab Homeland radio station the Voice of Africa and began talking in earnest about his pan-African plans.
But last year the sanctions were lifted, and Libyan leader has shifted his focus again, this time from Africa to new friends in the West who are eager to stop the African migration to Europe. The Libyan authorities have begun arresting and deporting those caught without a valid visa, even though visa requirements had been abolished earlier as part of Colonel Qaddafi's African outreach.
"For years, Libya said it could not play policeman for the West, but now, with the rapprochement, Libya has entered into a dialogue to deal with the situation," said Saleh Ibrahim, director of an academic institute close to the Libyan leader.
Mr. Bafoo, 25, tried to emigrate last year but lost $1,000 to an unscrupulous intermediary who made off with the cash. Last January, he lost $1,200 when the Tunisian Navy intercepted his boat and sent him back to Libya.
The Libyan police arrested him a few days ago and took his last $500. He hurt his foot when he escaped by scrambling over a cinder-block wall.
"They discriminate by the color of your skin," complained Mr. Bafoo, his injured foot smeared with massage cream because he has no identity papers or money for a hospital.
The boat people leaving from Libya are part of a broader wave of Europe-bound illegal immigrants from all along the North African coast, but nowhere has the passing been as easy or the traffic as heavy as it has been from here.
"We have cooperation with Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, but there have been no formal relations with this country and that has created a gap," said a European diplomat in Tripoli who has been involved in talks on how best to stem the tide.
Some of the Africans here say there was a rush of boats leaving Libya in recent months as people took their chances before the seas turned rough in November. More than 1,500 people landed on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa in October.
Libyan officials insist that their country has not abandoned Colonel Qaddafi's pan-African vision, but they say the problem has grown to a scale that cannot be ignored. Although Libya is now pushing Europe and the United States to increase investment in sub-Saharan Africa in the hope of keeping young men there, many of the Africans lured here by his past promises feel betrayed.
"Libya told all the Africans, 'Libya is Africa so you can come,' but many more people came than the country could handle," said Abbas Albal Kindam Yusef, a migrant from Sudan's troubled Darfur region. "Now they want us to leave."
Drinking water from a communal tin cup in Tripoli's crumbling old city, another Sudanese migrant, Sadiq Ataia, said 700 of his countrymen had been caught in the previous three days. Like most of the Sudanese here, Mr. Sadiq is from Darfur and claims allegiance to an opposition group fighting the government in Khartoum. He and other Sudanese say Libya is deporting Darfurians to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, where they face an uncertain future.
"We're very afraid because we have no passport and no visa," Mr. Sadiq said. He said he had worked as an intermediary for smugglers, finding candidates for the dangerous Mediterranean crossing, but added that many smugglers had been arrested in the current crackdown and the rest were afraid to act. "Now, it's impossible to leave," he said.
Even if the men do make it onto a boat, few of the smugglers provide a crew and the migrants choose pilots and navigators from among themselves. Many drown or die of exposure, while others end up back where they began.
Amin Boubaker said that two years ago, he spent $1,200 to get to Italy on a small Tunisian fishing boat with about 70 other people. They waited two days in the bush near Zuwarah for their boat to appear. When it did, they waded into the sea and clambered aboard in the darkness before dawn.
To pilot the boat, the Africans chose the only one among them who knew how to drive a car. After four days, they spotted lights on the horizon and cheered with joy. But it was not Italy. Within hours, the 70 were picked up by a Tunisian naval patrol, which sank the boat and sent the men to prison. They were released two weeks later near the Libyan border and made their way back to Tripoli.
"When we left, I thought we would be in Sicily in four hours," Mr. Boubaker said sheepishly.
Since then, the climate for Africans in Libya has rapidly deteriorated. Though the Africans provide cheap labor, ordinary Libyans never shared their leader's enthusiasm for their poor neighbors. In 2000, dozens of Africans were killed by mobs in western Libya. Although some Libyans were punished then, Africans say they have no protection from average Libyans or the police today. They say that Africans are regularly beaten and robbed.
Libya's crude banking system lacks international links, so the Africans have no way to send their earnings home. Some men slice open the brims of their caps and hide cash inside or slip bank notes between the plastic covers of their passport holders and reseal them. "If you fight back, they'll deport you right away," said a young Ghanian whose brother was deported two months ago. Libya is now offering free flights to repatriate Africans. But the waiting list for a seat is long and those who want to leave worry about being caught by the police.
The men say the overland trip home is dangerous, difficult and increasingly expensive, because the Libyan soldiers at checkpoints on the roads demand bribes. Crossing the desert itself is the most treacherous part. Trucks are discovered in the arid wilderness with a grisly cargo of people who died of thirst after their vehicle broke down or ran out of fuel when the driver lost his way.
"I'll take you to the border and you can see the bones of people in the desert, a skull here, a hand there, from people who lost their way," said a man eating from a communal bowl of stewed goat entrails in a building built for chickens that now houses hundreds of Sudanese instead. "We have no way to go back."
But the draw of Europe remains strong.
"I have many friends living in Italy now," said Muhammad Mutawakil, wearing a yellow baseball cap, "and they are doing much better than we are here or than our families in Ghana."

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11 December 2004 09:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't get the point of this typically Eurocentric article. Libya has about 5 million people of which "30% are blacks"--Kadaffi's exact words. Kaddafi--a Berber--perhaps has some useful ideas but his idea of Pan Africanism would have been better implemented if he had the brains of an Nkrumah, for example.

The thread's title was "Hope for Africa". And such hope will not be realised by Africans going to Europe and America to do voluntary beast of burden work.

But let's look at some facts:

10% of the world's blacks live outside of Africa: Brazil--50 million, USA--38 million, Haiti--8 million, etc.--the rest too small in number to state.

Only 2-3 million blacks born in Africa now live outside Africa.

By contrast over 40% of whites live outside of Europe mainly because of starvation and war that plagued Europe for centuries. This exodus was not peaceful however. It was accompanied by invasions, plunder, vagabondage, rape, murder and land theft.

But back to the thread: Hope for Africa.

These are the problems that must be corrected:

1)Africa has 53 states--far, far too many. They should be federally united into regional blocs with freedom of movement and single travel documents.

2)There should be a single covertible Africa currency with its value on par with those of the West. The play money now used by most African states are useless and should be retired.

3)The major problem in Africa is unemployment because of lack of indigenous business enterprises. This can be solved by vastly increasing the number of co-operative credit agencies such as co-operative banks. That's the reason why many Africans seek to travel to South Africa or the West where there are more jobs.

4) The IMF and World Bank should be banned from Africa. They are not much more than racist instruments of Western control. They wreak havoc wherever they tread. But they are maintained only because of the cowardice and pusillanimous mentality of Africa's leaders.

5) There's corruption in Africa but no more than in South America or parts of Asia. It's time the Europeans own to t he fact that Switzerland is the biggest money laundering site in the world--with its numbered accounts, etc. Sure, there's African money there but the really big heists come from Russia, Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Iraq, Argentine, etc.

IP: Logged

Keino
Member

Posts: 373
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 12 December 2004 12:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Keino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:

5) There's corruption in Africa but no more than in South America or parts of Asia. It's time the Europeans own to t he fact that Switzerland is the biggest money laundering site in the world--with its numbered accounts, etc. Sure, there's African money there but the really big heists come from Russia, Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Iraq, Argentine, etc.


I agree with you on this point. Banking is our #2 industry in The Bahamas next to tourism. Just over 3 years ago America and OECD with america leading the way came down hard on our country and black listed us as a money laundering nation as well as other countries throughout the Caribbean. We were required to lift most of our secrecy laws that protect clients privacy and have them totaly open to the US governemt or else be at the wrath of the mighty US. However, we argued that if we and other caribbean nations have to make these changes why doen't Switzerland have to adhere to these laws too so that economic parity and a more level playing field can be relatively maintained. The small and rather insignificant countries of the Caribbean had to abide by these unfair reforms.

This is just the stark economic reality of the capitalistic world we live in. Nations just have to learn the game and play it to the best of their abilities while implementing and enforcing laws that cut down on corruption and political ill will!

In my humble opinion, China and Japan will be the next leaders of the free world. Both are perfecting a socialistic-capatilistic system that could have better wealth distribution than we currently have in the west. Where will Africa come into play I really don't know but many countries have the potential to move in the direction of china and japan. Only time will tell!

IP: Logged

ausar
Moderator

Posts: 2920
Registered: Feb 2003

posted 12 December 2004 12:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ausar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

You notice that most of these writers exclude minority black populations in Northern Africa. In Southern Libya around the Saharan areas like Fezzan you find nomadic Tuareg and Tebu nomads that hardly get any mention in the press. In Algeria,and Morocco the situlation is similar with people living in the southern parts of Morocco.

Most of the ethnic groups in Libya are not indigenous,but are members of Bedouins that ramshacked Libya during the 1100's. Mainly the bedouin tribes of Beni Hilal and Beni Sulaiam. Most of the Berber population headed for the mountains or went into more southern territories. Qadafi is a bedouin,and so are most Libyans.



[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 12 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 12 December 2004 01:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
I don't get the point of this typically Eurocentric article. Libya has about 5 million people of which "30% are blacks"--Kadaffi's exact words. Kaddafi--a Berber--perhaps has some useful ideas but his idea of Pan Africanism would have been better implemented if he had the brains of an Nkrumah, for example.

The thread's title was "Hope for Africa". And such hope will not be realised by Africans going to Europe and America to do voluntary beast of burden work.

But let's look at some facts:

10% of the world's blacks live outside of Africa: Brazil--50 million, USA--38 million, Haiti--8 million, etc.--the rest too small in number to state.

Only 2-3 million blacks born in Africa now live outside Africa.

By contrast over 40% of whites live outside of Europe mainly because of starvation and war that plagued Europe for centuries. This exodus was not peaceful however. It was accompanied by invasions, plunder, vagabondage, rape, murder and land theft.

But back to the thread: Hope for Africa.

These are the problems that must be corrected:

1)Africa has 53 states--far, far too many. They should be federally united into regional blocs with freedom of movement and single travel documents.

2)There should be a single covertible Africa currency with its value on par with those of the West. The play money now used by most African states are useless and should be retired.

3)The major problem in Africa is unemployment because of lack of indigenous business enterprises. This can be solved by vastly increasing the number of co-operative credit agencies such as co-operative banks. That's the reason why many Africans seek to travel to South Africa or the West where there are more jobs.

4) The IMF and World Bank should be banned from Africa. They are not much more than racist instruments of Western control. They wreak havoc wherever they tread. But they are maintained only because of the cowardice and pusillanimous mentality of Africa's leaders.

5) There's corruption in Africa but no more than in South America or parts of Asia. It's time the Europeans own to t he fact that Switzerland is the biggest money laundering site in the world--with its numbered accounts, etc. Sure, there's African money there but the really big heists come from Russia, Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Iraq, Argentine, etc.


I MUST give you some updated facts.by the way the cia fact book does not get it right all the time.example it says that most cubans are white,and we know that most are black,and mixed but it is really a mostly black state,but the western media likes to show mostly the white and brown ones.
3.5 to 4 million africans live in the u.s alone now.so if you break it down in the u.s.4 million are recent africans,4 million more are from the west indies and 30 million are african americans and the rest from other places in the u.s.let us not forget that more half of the blacks in europe or africans and others from the west indies and other places,and africans live in asia and other places.

brazil really have 100 million or more and india has 200 to maybe 300 million or more blacks.let us not forget the islands in the pacfic and the land down under.10 million blacks live in mexico and alot live in latin america.
there are about 200 million blacks in the western part of the earth.let's not forget black hispanics.

in britian-3.5 million are black
france-3 million
italy-3-3.5 million
portugal-1 million
spain has some
germany-3 million
ireland-around 500,000 or more
belg.
neth.
denmark
the czech republic
slovania
let us not forget that the brainwashed black arabs are still black too.
eastern and central europe has some and other places in europe.SO THAT 10% NUMBER OF BLACKS LIVING OUTSIDE OF AFRICA IS HIGHER

The growth rate for african business is growing in all parts of africa,because the economies in all regions in recent times is growing fast.there is only one way but up.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 12 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

alTakruri
Member

Posts: 141
Registered: Dec 2004

posted 12 December 2004 09:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for alTakruri     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think Qadafis facial bone structure is Libyan African not Libyan Arab. On a personal
level Libynas are conscious about who is and who is not of invader stock.

Compare the facial bone structure of Qadafi to this Black American of ancestral European
admixture. In my opinion the African Libyans of the north are a fixed type resulting from
the original indigenous Libyans absorbing a steady trickle of north Mediterraneans that
has been ongoing since preneolithic time and was the most intense around 1600BCE to 1400BCE.

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 12 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12 December 2004 11:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To: Kenndo

Thanks for your reply but I want to believe that your numbers are somewhat inflated. The 3 million numbers you cite for Britain. France, Germany and Italy are really not accurate.

Take the case of Britain. Its population is some 58 million of which 5% are non-white(their numbers). That gives us roughly 3 million of which some 65% are from South Asian nations like India and Pakistan--ex-British colonies. Note that the population of India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan combined is 1.4 Billion. The total population of the ex-British colonies in Africa and elsewhere is no more than 300 million so that would probably explain why there are more South Asians(Indoids) than Africanoids in Britain.

The same for France: it has a population of some 60 million of which 10% or so is of non-European extraction but a large portion of that 10% is of North African origin. Many North Africans are of course Africanoid but many are not evidently so. Couple that with the relative small populations from Senegal, Mali, Guinee, Congo, Cameroon, etc. and you will that the total number would at most be barely 1 million.

The same applies to Germany and Italy which didn't really have many colonies in Africa. The Turks are the largest non-European contingent in Germany and the Somalis are the largest for Italy. Again, excluding the Turks the Africanoid population in Germany and Italy would barely reach 150,000.

For Brazil, your numbers are a bit high. Recall that Brazil undertook a whitening programme after slavery was abolished in 1885. Immigration was encouraged from places like Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, etc. so that apart from Bahia in the North-East visible Africanoids are not in the majority in Brazil. In a population of some 180 million I put the Africanoid population at some 50-60 million. I put the patently European(mainly of Southern European phentoype) population at some 60 million.

In the rest of the Americas only the African American population(38 million) is significant. There are pockets here and there: Colombia, Haiti, Ecuador, Jamiaca, Cuba( 3 million), etc. but the total number does not reach 25 million.

In the United States the official claim is that the foreign-born population is 30 million. Blacks are probably some 12% of that number. Note that Mexico's 90 million population plus the numbers that came from Russia, Eastern Europe, Korea, China, and India makes that 12% figure reasonable. But note that even today less than 4% of Asia's indigenous populations live outside of Asia. China and India alone have a combined population of 2.4 billion people. So do the calculations.

The idea that Asia is home to millions of Africanoids is not accurate. South Asian settlers in places like Kenya and South Africa are not identified as African nor do they identify themselves as such. Furthermore they are easily identifiable in their host countries.

So my claim that only about 10% of Africanoids live outside of Africa still stands. One can confirm this by doing the research for the relevant nations.

One may wonder what is meant by "Africanoid". Taking only the world's 3 home continents an Africanoid is someone whose phenotype would not match any MAJOR indigenous population groups in Europe or Asia but would match SOME MAJOR indigenous population group in Africa. Of course this definition is based mainly on approximations with the recognition that the evolution of human phenotypes need not have followed continental demarcations.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 12 December 2004 11:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
[B]In my opinion the African Libyans of the north are a fixed type resulting from
the original indigenous Libyans absorbing a steady trickle of north Mediterraneans that
has been ongoing since preneolithic time and was the most intense around 1600BCE to 1400BCE.[B]

Thought Writes:

Al Takruri, this conjecture that Eurasians impacted North Africa prior to the historic epoch is rooted in Eurocentric ideology. There is NO scientific basis to it. Yes there PROBABLY was a "trickle" of Eurasian immigration since the Neolithic period (no evidence what so ever before this), however there was NOT enough immigration to effect the phenotype of the dominant African population. In fact during the Neolithic period anthropologists like J.L. Angel have found Northern Mediterranean populations that resembled East Africans! Hence if these groups looked like East Africans and were bringing East African derived genes BACK INTO Africa how substantial would this TRICKLE really be. This tecnigue is just another ruse to posit Euraisans in Africa prior to the dawn of the historic epoch. We should remember a few things:

1) Prior to the Neolithic era population density was greater in Sub-Saharan Africa than ANYWHERE else.

2) Neolithic Eastern and Some Northern Mediterranean populations resembled East Africans.

3) The genetic and skeletal data record most of the Eurasian impact following the the New Kingdom.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 12 December 2004 12:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
To: Kenndo

Thanks for your reply but I want to believe that your numbers are somewhat inflated. The 3 million numbers you cite for Britain. France, Germany and Italy are really not accurate.

Take the case of Britain. Its population is some 58 million of which 5% are non-white(their numbers). That gives us roughly 3 million of which some 65% are from South Asian nations like India and Pakistan--ex-British colonies. Note that the population of India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan combined is 1.4 Billion. The total population of the ex-British colonies in Africa and elsewhere is no more than 300 million so that would probably explain why there are more South Asians(Indoids) than Africanoids in Britain.

The same for France: it has a population of some 60 million of which 10% or so is of non-European extraction but a large portion of that 10% is of North African origin. Many North Africans are of course Africanoid but many are not evidently so. Couple that with the relative small populations from Senegal, Mali, Guinee, Congo, Cameroon, etc. and you will that the total number would at most be barely 1 million.

The same applies to Germany and Italy which didn't really have many colonies in Africa. The Turks are the largest non-European contingent in Germany and the Somalis are the largest for Italy. Again, excluding the Turks the Africanoid population in Germany and Italy would barely reach 150,000.

For Brazil, your numbers are a bit high. Recall that Brazil undertook a whitening programme after slavery was abolished in 1885. Immigration was encouraged from places like Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, etc. so that apart from Bahia in the North-East visible Africanoids are not in the majority in Brazil. In a population of some 180 million I put the Africanoid population at some 50-60 million. I put the patently European(mainly of Southern European phentoype) population at some 60 million.

In the rest of the Americas only the African American population(38 million) is significant. There are pockets here and there: Colombia, Haiti, Ecuador, Jamiaca, Cuba( 3 million), etc. but the total number does not reach 25 million.

In the United States the official claim is that the foreign-born population is 30 million. Blacks are probably some 12% of that number. Note that Mexico's 90 million population plus the numbers that came from Russia, Eastern Europe, Korea, China, and India makes that 12% figure reasonable. But note that even today less than 4% of Asia's indigenous populations live outside of Asia. China and India alone have a combined population of 2.4 billion people. So do the calculations.

The idea that Asia is home to millions of Africanoids is not accurate. South Asian settlers in places like Kenya and South Africa are not identified as African nor do they identify themselves as such. Furthermore they are easily identifiable in their host countries.

So my claim that only about 10% of Africanoids live outside of Africa still stands. One can confirm this by doing the research for the relevant nations.

One may wonder what is meant by "Africanoid". Taking only the world's 3 home continents an Africanoid is someone whose phenotype would not match any MAJOR indigenous population groups in Europe or Asia but would match SOME MAJOR indigenous population group in Africa. Of course this definition is based mainly on approximations with the recognition that the evolution of human phenotypes need not have followed continental demarcations.


Thought Writes:

As of 2000:
http://www.ghi-dc.org/bulletin27F00/b27confethnic.html

Carol Blackshire-Belay analyzed the living conditions of the 500,000 Afro-Germans in Germany and their quest for reclaiming their history and identity as black Germans.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 12 December 2004 12:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
To: Kenndo

Thanks for your reply but I want to believe that your numbers are somewhat inflated. The 3 million numbers you cite for Britain. France, Germany and Italy are really not accurate.

Take the case of Britain. Its population is some 58 million of which 5% are non-white(their numbers). That gives us roughly 3 million of which some 65% are from South Asian nations like India and Pakistan--ex-British colonies. Note that the population of India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan combined is 1.4 Billion. The total population of the ex-British colonies in Africa and elsewhere is no more than 300 million so that would probably explain why there are more South Asians(Indoids) than Africanoids in Britain.

The same for France: it has a population of some 60 million of which 10% or so is of non-European extraction but a large portion of that 10% is of North African origin. Many North Africans are of course Africanoid but many are not evidently so. Couple that with the relative small populations from Senegal, Mali, Guinee, Congo, Cameroon, etc. and you will that the total number would at most be barely 1 million.

The same applies to Germany and Italy which didn't really have many colonies in Africa. The Turks are the largest non-European contingent in Germany and the Somalis are the largest for Italy. Again, excluding the Turks the Africanoid population in Germany and Italy would barely reach 150,000.

For Brazil, your numbers are a bit high. Recall that Brazil undertook a whitening programme after slavery was abolished in 1885. Immigration was encouraged from places like Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, etc. so that apart from Bahia in the North-East visible Africanoids are not in the majority in Brazil. In a population of some 180 million I put the Africanoid population at some 50-60 million. I put the patently European(mainly of Southern European phentoype) population at some 60 million.

In the rest of the Americas only the African American population(38 million) is significant. There are pockets here and there: Colombia, Haiti, Ecuador, Jamiaca, Cuba( 3 million), etc. but the total number does not reach 25 million.

In the United States the official claim is that the foreign-born population is 30 million. Blacks are probably some 12% of that number. Note that Mexico's 90 million population plus the numbers that came from Russia, Eastern Europe, Korea, China, and India makes that 12% figure reasonable. But note that even today less than 4% of Asia's indigenous populations live outside of Asia. China and India alone have a combined population of 2.4 billion people. So do the calculations.

The idea that Asia is home to millions of Africanoids is not accurate. South Asian settlers in places like Kenya and South Africa are not identified as African nor do they identify themselves as such. Furthermore they are easily identifiable in their host countries.

So my claim that only about 10% of Africanoids live outside of Africa still stands. One can confirm this by doing the research for the relevant nations.

One may wonder what is meant by "Africanoid". Taking only the world's 3 home continents an Africanoid is someone whose phenotype would not match any MAJOR indigenous population groups in Europe or Asia but would match SOME MAJOR indigenous population group in Africa. Of course this definition is based mainly on approximations with the recognition that the evolution of human phenotypes need not have followed continental demarcations.


Thought Posts:
www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7909207.htm


After all, nearly half of Brazil's 178 million people are Afro-Brazilian.

Thought Writes:

That would be 89 million people. Of course we all know that "whites" in Brazil have substantial African genes.

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 13 December 2004 12:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To Thought:

Re Brazil, that's exactly the point. There are phenotypical whites in South America and parts of Europe who have at least one recent African ancestor but that ancestry is not evident.

Two points: 1)the living descendants of Pushkin the famous Russian poet now live in Moscow and look completely Russian--I have seen photos--despite carrying an East African Y-Chromosome from their African ancestor who was transported(sold?) from East Africa to be a servant of Russian czar, Peter the Great.

2)American genome specialist Mark Shriver estimates that some 50 million white Americans have at least one African ancestor but such persons have absolutely no idea of this. The peculiar American phenomenon known as "passing" would explain this.

But again, the point about whites having African(black) ancestry is perhaps a moot one given that all human Y and mt-DNA haploytpes are merely recently modified African haplotypes.

The truth is that although racial phenotypes are ultimately skin deep(no pun) they do have profound implications for the lives of all humans--especially for those of Africanoid phenotype directly(i.e. those living in European dominated societies) or indirectly(i.e. those living in Africa; but even here the implications are very often direct).

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 13 December 2004 03:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
To: Kenndo

Thanks for your reply but I want to believe that your numbers are somewhat inflated. The 3 million numbers you cite for Britain. France, Germany and Italy are really not accurate.

Take the case of Britain. Its population is some 58 million of which 5% are non-white(their numbers). That gives us roughly 3 million of which some 65% are from South Asian nations like India and Pakistan--ex-British colonies. Note that the population of India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan combined is 1.4 Billion. The total population of the ex-British colonies in Africa and elsewhere is no more than 300 million so that would probably explain why there are more South Asians(Indoids) than Africanoids in Britain.

The same for France: it has a population of some 60 million of which 10% or so is of non-European extraction but a large portion of that 10% is of North African origin. Many North Africans are of course Africanoid but many are not evidently so. Couple that with the relative small populations from Senegal, Mali, Guinee, Congo, Cameroon, etc. and you will that the total number would at most be barely 1 million.

The same applies to Germany and Italy which didn't really have many colonies in Africa. The Turks are the largest non-European contingent in Germany and the Somalis are the largest for Italy. Again, excluding the Turks the Africanoid population in Germany and Italy would barely reach 150,000.

For Brazil, your numbers are a bit high. Recall that Brazil undertook a whitening programme after slavery was abolished in 1885. Immigration was encouraged from places like Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, etc. so that apart from Bahia in the North-East visible Africanoids are not in the majority in Brazil. In a population of some 180 million I put the Africanoid population at some 50-60 million. I put the patently European(mainly of Southern European phentoype) population at some 60 million.

In the rest of the Americas only the African American population(38 million) is significant. There are pockets here and there: Colombia, Haiti, Ecuador, Jamiaca, Cuba( 3 million), etc. but the total number does not reach 25 million.

In the United States the official claim is that the foreign-born population is 30 million. Blacks are probably some 12% of that number. Note that Mexico's 90 million population plus the numbers that came from Russia, Eastern Europe, Korea, China, and India makes that 12% figure reasonable. But note that even today less than 4% of Asia's indigenous populations live outside of Asia. China and India alone have a combined population of 2.4 billion people. So do the calculations.

The idea that Asia is home to millions of Africanoids is not accurate. South Asian settlers in places like Kenya and South Africa are not identified as African nor do they identify themselves as such. Furthermore they are easily identifiable in their host countries.

So my claim that only about 10% of Africanoids live outside of Africa still stands. One can confirm this by doing the research for the relevant nations.

One may wonder what is meant by "Africanoid". Taking only the world's 3 home continents an Africanoid is someone whose phenotype would not match any MAJOR indigenous population groups in Europe or Asia but would match SOME MAJOR indigenous population group in Africa. Of course this definition is based mainly on approximations with the recognition that the evolution of human phenotypes need not have followed continental demarcations.



I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS,MORE THAN 100 MILLION WOULD BE BLACK IN brazil,if you take those mixed raced types who look black or barely black.
THE INDIANS who went to south africa were mostly not the black ones of india,butand i seen some indians in south africa that look like black mixed raced types,so i still say india has a large black population.
mexico population is 100 so million now.
i do keep up to date on popultion growth of states and i do not wait for every ten years.

BLACKS IN AMERICA ARE CALLED BLACK AMERICANS,and if you break down the groups,it would be american american,west indian american and africans(recent black from africa)west indian blacks say they are not african american,and the same with recent africans.african americans would be 30 million,west indians,3.5-4 million and africans- 3.5 to 4 million,and the reat would be blacks from other places,so if you add these groups,the black american population would be 38 million something.

now-for europe.britian has 3 million south asians,1 million east asians and close to 2-3 million blacks other groups,not just folks from africa.that is why the white racist in britian want to stop this.france has already 6 million muslims.
IN france THE black population is around 2-3 million,AND THERE large numbers of others folks of color in these states.germany has a large turkish group,but i am aware some are white in turkey.

canada has 1 to 2 million.i could go on and on
but the largest states in western europe have larger black population than you realized.i spoke a british that give out info in new york over 10 years ago at the embassy,and do know what she said at that time?she said the black population was 2 million in 1992.by the way the numbers of folks of color is growing in europe.you could believe that.
germany,italy and others have larger black populations than you know.

INDIA COMBINED WITH THE OTHER STATES YOU MENTION IS NOT 1.4MILLION,IT IS LOWER.

I DO NOT REALLY agree with these numbers below here for britian but it is closer to the truth,than your info.

keep in mind that this is 2001 info as well.i would have to find more update or correct info later.




SEARCH

ADVANCED >



13 December 2004






home |




Browse by theme



Select Theme Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry Commerce, Energy and Industry Crime and Justice Economy Education and Training Health and Care Labour Market Natural and Built Environment Public Sector and Other Population and Migration Social and Welfare Transport, Travel and Tourism








Ethnicity & Identity printer-friendly



Population Size
7.9% from a non-White ethnic group


The majority of the UK population in 2001 were White (92 per cent). The remaining 4.6 million (or 7.9 per cent) people belonged to other ethnic groups.

Indians were the largest of these groups, followed by Pakistanis, those of Mixed ethnic backgrounds, Black Caribbeans, Black Africans and Bangladeshis. The remaining minority ethnic groups each accounted for less than 0.5 per cent of the UK population and together accounted for a further 1.4 per cent.


The non-White population: by ethnic group, April 2001, UK


Around half of the non-White population were Asians of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other Asian origin. A further quarter were Black, that is Black Caribbean, Black African or Other Black. Fifteen per cent of the non-White population were from the Mixed ethnic group. About a third of this group were from White and Black Caribbean backgrounds.

There were almost 691,000 White Irish people in Great Britain accounting for 1 per cent of the GB population.

In Great Britain the number of people who came from an ethnic group other than White grew by 53 per cent between 1991 and 2001, from 3.0 million in 1991 to 4.6 million in 2001. In 1991 ethnic group data were not collected on the Northern Ireland Census.

Correction Notice
On 11/08/2004, errors were found in the download data for Population Size under the 'Related Links'. The errors are small and do not affect the text of the article and have now been corrected. ONS apologises for any inconvenience caused.



Sources:
Census, April 1991 and 2001, Office for National Statistics;
Census, April 2001, General Register Office for Scotland;
Census, April 2001, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

Notes:
Census ethnic group questions: In both 1991 and 2001 respondents were asked to which ethnic group they considered themselves to belong. The question asked in 2001 was more extensive than that asked in 1991, so that people could tick 'Mixed' for the first time. This change in answer categories may account for a small part of the observed increase in the minority ethnic population over the period. Different versions of the ethnic group question were asked in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, to reflect local differences in the requirement for information. However, results are comparable across the UK as a whole.

In the table '.' means not applicable.

Non-White ethnic group includes all minority ethnic groups but not White Irish or Other White groups.



Published on 8 January 2004 at 0:01 am






Feedback or Enquiries | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Link to us
Crown Copyright applies unless otherwise stated



Related Links



Age/Sex distribution
Geographic Distribution
Households
Identity
Religion
Education
Labour Market
Employment Patterns
Health
Care
Smoking and drinking
Victims of Crime
Focus on Ethnicity & Identity Home
Download Data
A guide to ethnicity data






External Links



General Register Office for Scotland
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency






Suggested Links



Ethnicity http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455





[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 13 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 13 December 2004 12:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
TO KENNDO: Thanks for the follow-up.

So the black population in Britain is just about 1 million. One might use that number to estimate the black population in France, Germany and Italy bearing in mind that Nigeria was British colony and would potentially provide a large number of migrants to Britain. The tiny islands of the Caribbean that were under British control have no more than 4 million people--so do the extrapolation on that.

I have been to Brazil and although there are large numbers of blacks, they are outnumbered by the whites and the near whites(they call themselves "morenos").

Again, I don't accept the claim that India has millions of blacks. India seems to be populated by two dominant strains: the Dravidian indigenous and the Eurasian invaders. There seems to some amount of hybridity here--but that's just going on appearances. There are some indigenous Africanoid types in India but their numbers are quite small.

Furthermore, I just don't see the virtue of blacks running to white nations
to perform menial tasks, while the Lebanese, Indians, and whites rush in to Africa to live like kings.

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 13 December 2004 11:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
TO KENNDO: Thanks for the follow-up.

So the black population in Britain is just about 1 million. One might use that number to estimate the black population in France, Germany and Italy bearing in mind that Nigeria was British colony and would potentially provide a large number of migrants to Britain. The tiny islands of the Caribbean that were under British control have no more than 4 million people--so do the extrapolation on that.

I have been to Brazil and although there are large numbers of blacks, they are outnumbered by the whites and the near whites(they call themselves "morenos").

Again, I don't accept the claim that India has millions of blacks. India seems to be populated by two dominant strains: the Dravidian indigenous and the Eurasian invaders. There seems to some amount of hybridity here--but that's just going on appearances. There are some indigenous Africanoid types in India but their numbers are quite small.

Furthermore, I just don't see the virtue of blacks running to white nations
to perform menial tasks, while the Lebanese, Indians, and whites rush in to Africa to live like kings.


1-I DO NOT THINK BLACKS SHOULD BE RUNNING to white nations either,but the whites living now in certain parts of africa are not living like kings anymore.ask the white in zimb.
2- the blacks still out number the white and near white in brazil.i just said the mixed raced looking blacks and blacks with some mixture along with pure blacks out number really the other groups.certain scholars took a real census off this.
3-THE BLACKS in britian and the other large nation in western europe have more blacks living in those states,so the website i gave you is not really correct but closer to facts that you gave.
4-the dravidians were the original group of southeast asia.
many in the past had negriod features,but scholars are saying that you could be black or negriod some white features and still be black.
these types of blacks existed in the horn of africa before there was any white or any other race.how do you think whites came about.some blacks had to go from certain stages to become these other races.
MY STATEMENT stands and i called these or mamy of the original group in india black.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 14 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 14 December 2004 12:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
by the way the daily news in new york has reported that they found that three strong types of drugs that could destroy the aids virus,reseachers have said.
look up the internet for the daily news of new york city page 23-12/13/04
full details will be given out in early 2005.

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 14 December 2004 12:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







CurrentArchive









New drugs outfox the AIDS virus


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Researchers at Rutgers University have developed three promising drugs that they say destroy HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
The drugs, called DAPYs, mimic the virus by changing shape, which enables them to interfere with the way HIV attacks the immune system.

Tests conducted with Johnson & Johnson have shown the drug to be easily absorbed with minimal side effects. It also can be taken in one pill, in contrast to the drug cocktails now taken by AIDS patients.

"This could be it," Stephen Smith, the head of the department of infectious diseases at Saint Michael's Medical Center in Newark, told the Star-Ledger newspaper. "We're all looking for the next class of drugs."

Full details will be unveiled in early 2005, but Rutgers chemist Eddy Arnold said the new meds target reverse transcriptase, a submicroscopic protein comprising two coiled chains of amino acids. It is considered HIV's key protein.

"Reverse transcriptase is very important in the biology of AIDS," Smith said. "If you can really inhibit reverse transcriptase, you can stop AIDS."

The optimism about R278474, the most promising of the three drugs, stems from its potential to interfere with an enzyme the virus needs to copy and insert itself into a human cell.

"We're onto something very, very special," Arnold told the newspaper.

Two relatives of R278474, called TMC-120 and TMC-125, also have showed promise in clinical trials. Johnson & Johnson officials told the Ledger that the two drugs are of major interest to them, but they did not discuss R278474.

Originally published on December 13, 2004


Have stories like this emailed to you FREE every day!

Email this story

Printer-friendly version











LEFT







Home | News & Views | Sports | Entertainment | Business | Boroughs | City Life | Services

All contents © 2004 Daily News, L.P.
Disclaimer and Copyright Notice | Our Privacy Policy




awmktst



















City News
City News

Regional
Regional

World & National Report
World & National Report

Crime File
Crime File

Daily Dish
Daily Dish

Politics
Politics

Ideas & Opinions
Ideas & Opinions

Columnist
Columnist

Today's Headlines
Today's Headlines

Olympics
Olympics

Baseball
Baseball

Football
Football

Basketball
Basketball

Hockey
Hockey

High School
High School

More Sports
More Sports

Columnists
Columnists

Sports Odds
Sports Odds

Fantasy Sports
Fantasy Sports

Yankees
Yankees

Mets
Mets

MLB Stats
MLB Stats

Giants
Giants

Jets
Jets

NFL Stats
NFL Stats

Knicks
Knicks

Nets
Nets

NBA Stats
NBA Stats

Rangers
Rangers

Islanders
Islanders

Devils
Devils

NHL Stats
NHL Stats

Culture
Culture

Music
Music

Movies
Movies

Television
Television

Columnists
Columnists

Movie Reviews
Movie Reviews

Columnists
Columnists

Advice
Advice

Food
Food

Big Town
Big Town

Health
Health

Travel
Travel

Thersday
Thersday

Technology
Technology

Horoscopes
Horoscopes

Gridlock Sam
Gridlock Sam

Weather
Weather

Lottery
Lottery

Comics
Comics

Personals
Personals

Death Notices
Death Notices

Forums
Forums

NIE
NIE

Grocery Coupons
Grocery Coupons

Home Delivery
Home Delivery

Classifieds
Classifieds

Contact Us
Contact Us

Auto Market
Auto Market

Moving Resources
Moving Resources

Quick Facts
Quick Facts
http://www.nydailynews.com/city_life/health/story/261663p-223962c.html

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 14 December 2004 09:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks again, but a couple of points.

Terms like "negroid", "white features", "pure black",etc. are totally unscientific and should be avoided as the "deep knowledge" posters on this site do.

Re AIDS:
The point about AIDS is that people erroneously confuse symptoms with the disease itself. There are certain necessary conditions that involve the major risk factors world-wide that muct accompany any diagnostic. The major risk factors are male homosexuality and IV drug use with needle exchange. Such risk factors are much higher in the West than elsewhere.

For more comprehensive views on this 20 year so-called "pandemic" check out
http://www.virusmyth.org. The essays by MD Christian Fiala and ex-London Times science reporter, Thomas Hodgkinson are interesting. Also check out journalist Rian Malam's report from South Africa.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 15 December 2004 01:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=6970

Arabizing an Africa Capital
Sunday December 12th, 2004 16:43.
Printer-Friendly version Send this article to a friend
Destinator :
(enter destinator's email address)

From
(enter your name)

(enter your email)

What if government brings up the African face of Sudan?

By Mahgoub El-Tigani

Dec 11, 2004 -- The Khartoum administration is working hard these days to prepare the national capital to a grand cultural occasion under the exciting logo "Khartoum, the Capital of the Arabic Culture."

Wasting no time, the ruling NIF's Presumptuous Arab Mentality (PAM) decided to inundate the Sudan T.V., the Omdurman national radio service, and all government supported media with a specific message: "Sudan is an Arab society with an Arab government, an Arab culture, and an Arab capital." Towards this end, the government invoked legal revisions as well as security measures in advance to ensure the most stringent degree of cultural monopoly in the upcoming discourse of the cultural festival.

The Registrar-General of the Cultural Association, Ms. Maria Sa'eed, repeatedly announced in the T.V. that all associations thus far registered under the prevailing law are "hereby invalidated unless they apply for re-registration, hold general assemblies by permission, and elect executive committees with the direct presence of the Registrar's Office." When asked "why should an association established by the late highly-esteemed Professor 'Abd-Allah al-Tayeb is subjected to such procedure," the Registrar-General forcibly affirmed "it is the law."

The truth of the matter is that the government wants to run a meticulous check on all available cultural associations of the country so that none of them, other than those fully supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood Arabization-Islamization Cultural Project, would be able to access the Khartoum Cultural Festival.

Related to this policy, the State Security Department, assisted by the Attorney General's Chamber, summoned the Sudanese famous poet Mahgoub Sharief and had him interrogated by attorney Mohamed Farid for 3 hours. This cheap intimidation of one of the progressive icons of the Sudanese cultural activities was not conducted in vacuum. It was exactly planned to intimidate the anti-government intellectuals to make sure none of them would plan or even think of approaching the State programmed festival.

As expected, henceforth, a number of other measures would be subsequently imposed: arresting as many opponents as is possible, intensifying media campaigns, and placing the whole capital in additional repression under the Emergency Law authority. Of particular significance, the Africanness of Khartoum and her African face and genuine realities will be harshly depressed. Thus, the world will rarely see Sudanese African faces or languages throughout the festival. What the world would be watching is an Arab capital, with Arab faces, Arab language, and Arab Islam, culture, politics, etc. For that purpose, deliberate hiding of the Khartoum Africanness is under way; commercials are already in order emphasizing Arab-Muslim book shows beginning with an Egyptian-Sudanese book fair that is largely reserved to publications on Arab-Muslim literature. Is that what culture is all about in a multi-religious multi-ethnic multi-cultural capital?!

The negativity of this plan is serious: it will help to frustrate the peace climates that are already zigzagging with the government's hostilities against the SPLM/SPLA, the NDA, and the escalated armed struggles of DarFur. The government emphasis on Khartoum as the capital of Arab culture is another discriminatory policy that would further frustrate the large Sudanese African citizens of the national capital who represent the most victimized sections of the war-affected non-Arab people of Sudan. These citizens would be completely alienated or relegated to inactiveness in their own national capital, as far as the Arabization and Islamization state emphasis is recklessly enforced.

The PAM rulers, however, ill planned their cultural venture in two major issues: 1) the Sudan's society, government, and capital that they repressively ruled are not claimers of a sole Arab entity or culture as the NIF PAM small population is; and 2) the national capital they obsessively claimed as a capital of the Arab culture is equally an ancient community of non-Arab speaking Africans, including many members of the NIF ruling PAM descendants themselves!

Of great significance, the 5 million or so estimated Khartoum population of the day includes 2 million displaced citizens or more from the predominantly non-Arab South and Western Sudan. Added to this, the vast majority of the remaining citizens of the national capital are humans with a wonderful ethnic and cultural background of Blemmyes (Beja ancestry), African Darfuris, Nubians, Shulluk, Dinka, and other Nilotic and Equatorian origins that have mingled with the emigrating Arabs centuries ago. By all measures, then, it is a serious cultural dilemma for the Khartoum administration to insist through its planned cultural festival on Khartoum as the Capital of the Arab Culture.

The program's dilemma has already started in the Sudan T.V. programs. Commentary on three of these programs suffices to substantiate the points in question. These programs include interviews with Sudanese scholars, members of the Muslim 'Ulama or other Muslim Brotherhood leaderships, and some theatrical shows.

Asma fi Hayatuna, a Sudan T.V. quasi-permanent program, started showing lengthy meetings with al-Sheikh Sadiq 'Abd-Allah 'Abd al-Magid, leader of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood. In principle, it is good to have a detailed dialogue with the respectable sheikh who is known for his decency and knowledge of Islamic Shari'a.

The problem, however, is that the program was timely transmitted without balanced critique of al-Sheikh's views as a cultural program is required to do. Obviously, the timing and the context of the program might have been meant to favor the Islamization-Arabization doctrine the respectable Sheikh has been strongly supporting. This doctrine is severely criticized in a national level because it entrenched inequality and discrimination between citizens of the same society at expense of the rights and freedoms of the non-Arab non-Muslim citizens of Sudan.

Sheikh Sadiq is known as an Islamist hard-liner who issued strong denouncements against the democratic opposition's ascertainment of Khartoum as a multi-ethnic multi-linguistic multi-religious national capital of the country. It would have been better has the program conductor ensured a balanced interview with Sheikh Sadiq and an opponent of the Islamization-Arabization doctrine. On reason for this suggestion is that it is not serviceable to the national unity or the ongoing peace climates to monopolize the State T.V. programs with biased Islamist influences when the whole nation is heading to a last, just, and non-discriminatory peace consensus.

In another program, the discussion hosted Nubian scholars who honestly spoke about the African-rooted culture of Nubia. One of the speakers put it clearly, "the Nubians, according to many experts and researchers, are ancient Africans who were made to forfeit their deeply-rooted African entity to the Arab penetrating culture." The program posited the dilemma of the NIF PAM planners since the songs, lyrics, and commentaries were mainly supportive of the Nubian non-Arab identity!

In another program, a group of girls were dancing and singing in a theatre. The conductor claimed that the band is "nationally representative" of some folkloristic activity. The question is: where are the African Sudanese girls who equally represent the nation?

It is a wrongful policy that the NIF PAM insist on sidelining our innocent children from the displaced areas or even the other quarters of the capital to "ensure Arab looking faces" in the upcoming Khartoum festival. It is equally wrongful the NIF PAM insist on frustrating 2 million citizens in the displaced towns of the pauperized city only to make sure "Khartoum is capital of the Arab culture!"

To well-represent the wonders of the Khartoum cultures, as an epitome of the Sudanese rich blends, the Sudan Government is advised to stop its enforceable Arab-Islamized trend that is showing a false picture and content of the national capital of Sudan.

The NIF planners should do justice to the agenda of peace and democracy in our beleaguered nation by simply stating and showing the truth about our society, a beautiful African nation with a multi-ethnic multi-linguistic multi-religious diversity, including the significant Arab components. Let us hope the Khartoum Cultural Festival turns to a real representative of the Sudanese beautiful diversity and peaceful identity.

What if government allows full freedoms to bring to the surface in the T.V., radio, and press the real Afro-Arab face of Sudan?

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 15 December 2004 01:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Thanks again, but a couple of points.

Terms like "negroid", "white features", "pure black",etc. are totally unscientific and should be avoided as the "deep knowledge" posters on this site do.

Re AIDS:
The point about AIDS is that people erroneously confuse symptoms with the disease itself. There are certain necessary conditions that involve the major risk factors world-wide that muct accompany any diagnostic. The major risk factors are male homosexuality and IV drug use with needle exchange. Such risk factors are much higher in the West than elsewhere.

For more comprehensive views on this 20 year so-called "pandemic" check out
http://www.virusmyth.org. The essays by MD Christian Fiala and ex-London Times science reporter, Thomas Hodgkinson are interesting. Also check out journalist Rian Malam's report from South Africa.



WELL,IF SOMEONE FROM GHANA , the congo or many other places in africa or outside africa like most parts of west indies,europe or other places said they are full black,that would be the truth.if some one says he or she is unmixed,that person should not feel bad like some folks try to make them feel.do you know there are groups out there promoting the so call biracial movement?jump on there case.yes i know that all humans come from africa,but today we must face the real world and when a racist wants to kill you,he or she does not say,hey i know we are humans,no they want to kill because you belong to a certain group of the human race.

I am objective when it come to history to a certain extent and some other things,but i am not so objective when it comes to the real world today and craziness or wrongs of the past in history,or if someone tries to kill someone you love or if you study the history of racism in america or other places,believe me,you would not be so objective.

It is amazing when,when white scholars go around the world and say what makes up a negriod or caucasoid,but when others do it and say,well most of those ancient egyptians look negriod,than oh no,than there is now no such thing as race?folks can't have it both ways.
by the way those terms are not avoided on these topics has much as you think.look back at other topics.NOW i had enough of this topic,so let's move on.


[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 15 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 17 December 2004 03:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Europe and Europeans: Does it include Turkey, Americanization and Africanization?

12/18/2004

By Natalia Forrest
What does it mean to be a European? The European Union itself is grappling with this question for six months of debate, and finally this December a special conference on European values will be held in the Netherlands. But how relevant is this discussion for the EU? While the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende “thinks that it is high time to confront questions such as ‘what does it mean to be a European’ in a serious way… there is a great danger that the lack of legitimacy of the EU will eventually lead to unpleasant situations, such as the disintegration of the EU"( Beunderman: 2004), recently an article in the Economist argued that, “With many more members and increasingly diverging interests, a one-size Europe may no longer fit all.”(Economist: 2004)

But this important question will continue to be in focus over the acceptance of Turkey. While much of the discussion may be over issues of trade and refugees, at its core is a fundamental question – is Turkey really a European nation?

A logical argument, you might say: with a population of almost half a billion people who have distinct languages, cultures and histories, not to mention national economic, security and development interests, perhaps the EU really has spread itself too thinly. You can always get countries to work together for a shared economic goal, yet you are not going to get them to set aside cultural differences lightly. Or are you? For every argument that the EU is only an economic tool of the bean-counters in Brussels, there is someone like Nick Butler arguing, “Cultural Europe, driven by television and technology, is already more unified than Economic Europe.” (Butler: 1996) Even if this second statement is true, what is ‘Cultural Europe’?

European culture isn’t Asian: An obvious one you would think. And yet, where does this place Russia? While not a member of the EU (yet) Russia shares much of Europe’s common heritage in regards to art, literature, even language (prior to the Communist revolution, French used to be accepted as the lingua franca of the Russian court and intellectuals). Moscow and St. Petersburg could be considered ‘European’ cities. And yet Russia stretches across the Asian continent to the Pacific. There is also the case of Turkey. While Talleyrand may have claimed that “Europe stops at the Pyrenees” (quoted in Kurth: 1993, p. 225) most Europeans believe that the definition of Europe may have stretched a little further. So does it stretch to a country that has borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria? To a country with a language that is closely related to Mongolian and Korean, and has only been written in Latin text since the early 20th century? If so, where should the line be drawn – where does Europe stop and Asia begin?

European culture isn’t African: Unlike Asia, there is a body of water separating Europe and Africa. None of the countries applying for membership of the EU could conceivably be called ‘African’. Yet there is an element of the EU population that is African – official figures indicate that in Europe, “out of a total of 11 million foreigners (not counting people from the European Union), 3 million are from Africa. The African continent is thus the primary region of origin of immigrants present in the European Union.” (Institut de recherché pour le développement: 1997) Among West Africans in Europe more than 60% are young adults aged 20 to 39. (Ibid) While Africa may not be considered a major force in shaping European culture today, the demographics of a young African population amongst an aging ‘European’ one means that there is a good chance that European culture will come to reflect more and more the rising number of Africans residing there.

European culture isn’t American: This one is probably the most contentious. Despite the best efforts of the Academie Francais, ‘Americanisms’ manage to slip into the French language, just as they do into all European languages. English continues to dominate the EU, and this is not exclusively due to the power of Great Britain – the domination of American culture has meant that the language of the US is becoming the global lingua franca despite the best efforts of some. While the languages of all EU member states are regarded as equal, “English is the language which is most widely "spoken" in the EU. While it is the mother tongue for 16% of the European population, a further 31% of the EU citizens speak it well enough to hold a conversation.” (EUROPA: 2004) This will probably aid them at the local cinema: “of the films watched in cinemas across Europe, 70% of them are from the US, 20% are from the country they are watched in, and only 10% are from other European countries.” (BBC News: 2004) This is along with television, print and music from the United States beaming in to homes throughout Europe.

But even this is highly contentious, as many people will disagree with at least some of the above statements. This brings into focus how ill-defined the idea of what the European culture is – if you can’t definitely say what isn’t ‘Cultural Europe,’ then you have nothing to define it against. As former French prime minister Michel Rocard recently argued, 'the Europe of institutions was built without any reference to a particular vision of society…. There was no agreement on the intention or the need to adopt such a vision, nor on what it could have meant, not at the beginning of the integration process and not today' (Rocard: 2004) The EU has continued to operate as though its cultural identity is a given, only now deciding to convene to discuss this important part of its make-up. The economists may have brought about an organization that unites Europe in a common economic bloc, but perhaps the idea of a homogenous ‘Europe’ is bound to fail. Yet this is not necessarily a bad thing, as a Europe that is flexible about its identity has the fluidity to be whatever is required as times change.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES


--: 2004 ‘Europe á la carte’ Economist Sept 25th – October 1st, p.14 – 15 special insert

-- : 2003 The Oxford Compact English Dictionary, Oxford University Press

--: 1997 “The First Atlas of West African Migration to Europe” Institut de recherché pour le développement can be found at http://www.ird.fr/us/actualites/fiches/1997/34.htm

- ‘EU plans to boost film industry’ BBC News 19 May, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3728089.stm

Beunderman, Mark: 2004 “EU leaders to attend 'intellectual' summit” EU Observer 5th May. Can be found at http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=15451

Butler, Nick: 1996 “Introduction” in Charles Grant, ed. Reshaping Europe: Visions for the future CER

EUROPA: 2004 Languages of Europe can be found at http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/index_en.html

Kurth, James: 1993 “A Tale of Two Peripheries: Southern Europe and Eastern Europe,” in James Kurth and James Petras, eds, Mediterranean Paradoxes

Rocard, Michel: 2004 “De l'Europe, du socialisme et de la dignité” Le Monde 22 September

Natalia Forrest has a Master's degree in International Studies from Sydney University. She currently lives in Australia, and in the past lived in Papua New Guinea, Japan and the United Kingdom. am currently based in Australia. Other than English, I am working on my phrasebook French. My main interest is in the sociological and cultural aspects of International Relations.


IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 17 December 2004 04:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The EU now has 450 million of which 3 million are from Africa(mainly North African) so I don't see what the impact of that population could be. And 3 million is less than 30% of 11 million.

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 17 December 2004 04:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In Africa Europeans are very easily identifiable--despite protestations. Europeans are exclusively the indigenous people of Europe from Ireland in the West to European Russia in the East PLUS Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Canadians, Chileans, Argentinians, etc. Turks and Lebanese are never regarded as European.

IP: Logged

kenndo
Member

Posts: 236
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 17 December 2004 09:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kenndo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
The EU now has 450 million of which 3 million are from Africa(mainly North African) so I don't see what the impact of that population could be. And 3 million is less than 30% of 11 million.

there are more africans in the eu than that and i am not just talking about north africans.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 17 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 17 December 2004 11:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
there are more africans in the eu than that and i am not just talking about north africans.[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 17 December 2004).]

Thought Writes:

I would have to agree.

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 18 December 2004 08:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To Thought2 and Kenndo:

You may be right because the "3 million from Africa" I cite comes from the source article which claims that "official" numbers for non-Europeans in Europe are 11 million with 3 million from Africa. We tend to believe that anything "official" coming from Europe, America, the UN, WHO, IMF(note their unchangimg silly claim that Africans live on less than $2 a day)must be correct. The question to ask in each instance is how were such "offical" numbers gathered and who will benefit if they are "high" or if they are "low"?

But again, just showing skepticism at Western "official" claims is not enough; one has to first show the illogic of the claim then come up with a more plausible alternative model.

IP: Logged

sunstorm2004
Member

Posts: 200
Registered: Mar 2004

posted 18 December 2004 09:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for sunstorm2004     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Supercar wrote:
Social relations became the key to addressing the problem

Yup. The real solution to AIDS is social, rather than pharmaceutical, or mechanical(condoms). Social values make all the difference.

IP: Logged

Thought2
Member

Posts: 705
Registered: May 2004

posted 18 December 2004 11:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thought2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
To Thought2 and Kenndo:

The question to ask in each instance is how were such "offical" numbers gathered and who will benefit if they are "high" or if they are "low"?


Thought Writes:

Great point!

IP: Logged

multisphinx
Member

Posts: 133
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 18 December 2004 04:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for multisphinx     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
by the way the daily news in new york has reported that they found that three strong types of drugs that could destroy the aids virus,reseachers have said.
look up the internet for the daily news of new york city page 23-12/13/04
full details will be given out in early 2005.

In one of my coarses i have taken, i believe ecology, the professor mentioned that they do probebly have the aids vaccine, but keep it on the low because if they realease such a vaccine, ppl are to live. And right now they say the world is overpopultated and some how some disasters must play a key role in elimanating parts of the population, so if they were to realeace such a vaccine, aids which taks million of lives away every year, would keep these ppl alive, causing more growth of our worlds population

IP: Logged

multisphinx
Member

Posts: 133
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 18 December 2004 04:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for multisphinx     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by multisphinx:
In one of my coarses i have taken, i believe ecology, the professor mentioned that they do have the aids vaccine, but keep it on the low because if they realease such a vaccine, ppl are to live. And right now they say the world is overpopultated and some how some disasters must play a key role in elimanating parts of the population of the world, so if they were to realease such a vaccine, aids which taks million of lives away every year, would keep these ppl alive, causing more growth of the worlds population.


IP: Logged

Keino
Member

Posts: 373
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 19 December 2004 01:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Keino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by multisphinx:
In one of my coarses i have taken, i believe ecology, the professor mentioned that they do probebly have the aids vaccine, but keep it on the low because if they realease such a vaccine, ppl are to live. And right now they say the world is overpopultated and some how some disasters must play a key role in elimanating parts of the population, so if they were to realeace such a vaccine, aids which taks million of lives away every year, would keep these ppl alive, causing more growth of our worlds population


Knowing the nature of this virus I do not think there is or will be a VACCINE out there that can ELIMINATE or TOTALLY PROTECT against HIV. This new medication has been whispered about in the scientific community for the past 2 months and I think the DAPYs are promising. HIV and AIDS is a big problem in some countries in Africa, but Malaria kills 2-3 times as much people as AIDS illnesses per day.

[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 19 December 2004).]

IP: Logged

Keino
Member

Posts: 373
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 19 December 2004 01:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Keino     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Thanks again, but a couple of points.

Terms like "negroid", "white features", "pure black",etc. are totally unscientific and should be avoided as the "deep knowledge" posters on this site do.

Re AIDS:
The point about AIDS is that people erroneously confuse symptoms with the disease itself. There are certain necessary conditions that involve the major risk factors world-wide that muct accompany any diagnostic. The major risk factors are male homosexuality and IV drug use with needle exchange. Such risk factors are much higher in the West than elsewhere.

For more comprehensive views on this 20 year so-called "pandemic" check out
http://www.virusmyth.org. The essays by MD Christian Fiala and ex-London Times science reporter, Thomas Hodgkinson are interesting. Also check out journalist Rian Malam's report from South Africa.



That link is Myth itself!! I have seen the affects of HIV and AIDS first hand and I understand the dynamic or the virus and exactly how its works to destroy the immune system. I do research in Immunology.

HIV and AIDS is as real as a gunshot to the head or cancer! Please don't believe that stupid website, PLEASE!

IP: Logged

lamin
Member

Posts: 69
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 19 December 2004 11:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lamin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To Keino:

Thanks, but I don't know what country you are based in. I don't deny the existence of HIV or AIDS. And many contributors to Virusmyth.org don't deny such.

My concerns are this: 1)If Africa has approximately 14% of the world's population and 2)is the least compatible with the major risk factors for AIDS then how can it have 70% of the world's AIDS cases? That would mean that Africans have male homosexual sex, use IV drugs with needle exchange and travel MORE THAN 6 TIMES THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. Can that make sense? If it does then please oblige with an explanation.

According to UNAIDS the major risk factors for AIDS in the West, Latin America and Asia are 1)male anal homosexual sex and 2)IV drug use with exchange of needles. 3)The transmission of the disease is speeded up with easy travel from region to region.

Again, I don't deny the existence of HIV and AIDS but what I am skeptical of are the huge numbers reported for an area where the reported risk factors are the least applicable.

This is anecdotal obviously--but I live in West Africa for a number of months each year and I have yet to meet or know anybody with AIDS. And I know lots of people.

Here are some considerations:

1)The large abortion rate and numbers in the West show that so-called "safe sex" is not taken seriously. Consider the probability of a woman getting pregnant each month to determine how much "unsafe sex" there is in the West.

2)Homosexuality is openly accepted regardless of how the homosexuals practice their habit.

3)Prostitution is common and now with the internet explosion all kinds of sex are readily available.

4)People in the West travel much, much more than in Africa--thereby making the disease more easily transmittable.

5) Alcohol and inhibition lowering drugs such as ecstacy are easily available--and the standard weekend practice for lots of youth is to get drunk and
engage in random sex--at rave parties or post-athletic events parties.

6)In Brazil there's a yearly raucous carnival with much drunkeness and debauchery. The result is that 9 months after the birth rate spikes up. In Brazil too, homosexuality is rampant in places like Rio and Sao Paolo and there is much drug taking.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS:1) Why is it that the AIDS rate in the West and Brazil combined is less than 1% of t he population while in Africa it's put at 10% + when AFRICANS JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, TIME OR RESOURCES TO TAKE DRUGS, IMBIBE ALCOHOL, FREQUENT HOMOSEXUAL BATHOUSES, FLY FROM CITY TO CITY JUST TO PARTY, TROLL THE INTERNET FOR SEX, ETC?

2)What is the empirical probability of an HIV+ male transmitting the virus to his female partner?--the claim is that in Africa HIV afflicts heterosexually.

3)What is the empirical probability of an HIV+ female transmitting the virus to her male partner?

4)How is HIV testing done in the West?

5)How is HIV testing done in Africa?

6)How is sample data extrapolated to t he whole population in Africa and the West?

7) The notoriety of AIDS derives from the claim that it is a disease of HIGH MORBIDITY. So why then hasn't this so-called 20 year pandemic in Africa rapidly levelled off then declined like the progression path and etiology of all pandemics?

8)IF AIDS is so rampant in Africa why hasn't it not rapidly decimated the ranks of the hundreds of athletes and football players that compete professionally world-wide? AIDS greatly affected the U.S. male skating teams plus its actors and others.


In the spirit of debate answers are anticipated.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are GMT (+2)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c