-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Macron: Africa's issues are "much more sophisticated than a simple money transfer"
- Thread starter TheWasTheJoke
- Start date
Mass_Pincup
Banned
The problem is that France is actually profiting from this situation.
Making grand statement like this when your predecessors actively tried to maintain that statu quo is a bit disingenuous isn't it?
So he is supposed to not acknowledge the situation as it is?
Napoleonthechimp
Member
He's not them, so no?
The man just entered office, perhaps he wants to tackle the issue. Give him a chance. What you are doing is throwing him under the bus.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Acknowledging the situation as it is would be mentioning the outside meddling from foreign countries (France in particular) in a vast amount of governemental and economical institutions.
Sinse he's going to profit from Africa in the same way, yes it is.
No?
Do you know what the word disingenuous means?
TTOOLL
Member
He's not his predecessors...
Also, one of the biggest cultural problems in South America,I live in Brazil, and other underdeveloped countries is not taking responsibility for our own actions. It's always other people's fault. And yet, we keep electing terrible leaders, not investing in education in the long term, poor people tend to have pretty big families and so on.
So yes, it's a civilizational problem.
Hahaha so ok he wants to fuck over Africa even more. Developing countries and public private partnerships are a recipe for disaster. They need centralized government programs to set the foundation, not public-private cooperation. They're not at that stage yet even if you prefer to use such constructions.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
He is not automatically obliged to continue the same policies, so he is entirely within his rights to say things that go against the actions of previous administrations.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I don't know the situation in South America but unless you have another country holding producing and holding a part of your money as well as subjecting you to monetary policy of another economical bloc (the UE here) which prevents you from fully manage your economy as you see fit, I'm pretty sure it's not the same situation.
For the record I'm specifically talking about the Franc CFA zone here.
For what it's worth, he has strongly criticised France's colonial past in Algeria:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/87d6f430-f521-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608
So I would hope that on some level he understands the impact of Africa's colonial past. He could have certainly added that to this speech though.
As long as he's willing to act, then no it really isn't.
"Yeah but colonialism" isn't a valid or constructive response to this. If he does nothing then it's certainly disingenuous.
titiklabingapat
Member
It's not just equatorial Africa though. Equatorial Asia and Americas suffered the same fate and continue to still do today.
Colonialism played a role but the fact that these regions were even vulnerable to colonialism is a matter of geography. Sucks but no one is innocent here. Shoula woulda coulda.
Colonialism played a role but the fact that these regions were even vulnerable to colonialism is a matter of geography. Sucks but no one is innocent here. Shoula woulda coulda.
DarthMasta
Member
I don't see how anyone can disagree that Africa's issues are "much more sophisticated than a simple money transfer". Now Africa's a big place, so some countries would do fine with just a money transfer, IMO, others need time and effort to develop to a point where a money transfer wouldn't be wasted.
Hopefully through a variety of factors. A couple of years ago the Gates' Foundation outlined a few in this letter: Increased yields by up to 50% per area by teaching modern agricultural techniques, improving the regional infrastructure to make it easier to distribute food instead of shipping it across sea and getting mobile phone access to farmers which in turn gives them information about weather, market prices and banking services.
Another interesting article is this one which outlines how African researchers are looking at the possibility of encouraging growth of local instead of foreign crops. These can be more nutritious, more suitable for the climate and resistant to droughts, and improving the diversity could make the agriculture more resistant to bad harvests and decrease the risk of famine.
No doubt none of this will be easy. Especially with how climate change will hit many of these countries hard. But it does not seem hopeless, although I'm far from an expert.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Sure, doesn't make it less shitty since he's going to tacitly keep things as they are. He already mentioned what his plans for Africa are, it's not that much different from what Hollande was doing and saying.
If you read my post you would see that I'm not even talking about colonialism here, more about current things happening right now.
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
(Reading the full quote) He's making a statement that is not only not racist at all, but acknowledges both the process African countries have made and that there are very complex and diverse issues that, precisely, Western aid lenders don't understand and cannot micromanage, and that blindly throwing money into flawed governments won't do anything other than fund criminal/mafioso groups.
He's recognising the agency of African leaders and the need to work with them and listen to what they have to say.
Macron is modern af, he's poised to be a very decent president.
He's recognising the agency of African leaders and the need to work with them and listen to what they have to say.
Macron is modern af, he's poised to be a very decent president.
There's more to population than merely having land and food. There are economic, cultural, and religious fault lines which are going to be wildly exacerbated by a higher population. Europe and Asia didn't get to where they are now without massive war snd social upheaval. Facing precedent, the same is probably going to happen in Africa, with its arbritary colonial borders and systemic oligarchic corruption. Of course France is going to try and get ahead of the issue when language and economics makes their country a particularly popular choice for migrants and refugees.
France only benefits from peace and good relations. The alternative was Le Pen.
That's fine, but the stuff happening now is rooted in the past.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Alright so?
Some Africans contries are subjected to ECB economic policies. An entity which as nothing to do with Africa and aren't taking into account their specific problems. I fail to see how that being rooted in the past is relevant to what I'm saying.
PjotrStroganov
Member
You have chosen well France!
Even had he said that in English, it's very common for French speakers to use English words with the French meaning in mind.
Another thing of note is that Macron spent some time in Nigeria as a student when everyone else was trying to go to London/Washington (he did an internship with the French embassy there IIRC). He's got a much more modern take on the situation than his predecessors.
He's far from perfect, but he's far better than what we've had until now.
Holy Order Sol
Member
Yeah considering Macron outright called the colonization of Algeria a crime against humanity this had to be some OP fuckery
It's too late, Africa has missed the boat for the 4th industrial revolution.
Now and for the immediate century, they will just be recipients of technology export from the West global dominance instead of coming up with national champions which big Asia countries did. Lacking domestic heavyweights, it will be significantly harder to rise up from a manufacturer country to a high skilled labor ones. Your local companies will also be at the mercy of being disrupted via technology.
Look from another perspective, democracy is an excuse for developed ( western ) nations to exert influence into underdeveloped ones and to exploit them for their own benefits.
Now and for the immediate century, they will just be recipients of technology export from the West global dominance instead of coming up with national champions which big Asia countries did. Lacking domestic heavyweights, it will be significantly harder to rise up from a manufacturer country to a high skilled labor ones. Your local companies will also be at the mercy of being disrupted via technology.
Look from another perspective, democracy is an excuse for developed ( western ) nations to exert influence into underdeveloped ones and to exploit them for their own benefits.
Raven117
Member
Well said actually.
Africa is an extremely difficult situation with specific regional challenges making challenge even more complex.
All I know is this, the West needs to become invested in Africa again. As it stands now, China is having its turn with exploiting the continent for its natural resources, and truly not giving an eff how it effects the locals.
Well Its not hard they need a poor country to get cheap resources, the only thing Europe and usa seems to Care about africa and South america recently is resources and practicing genocide with border Control. When they explored the shit of those places with slavery and Native genocide.
Hope macron Helps, but i dont expect nothing of recent Europe and usa.
Hope macron Helps, but i dont expect nothing of recent Europe and usa.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Read the title and thought "well yeah, he's certainly right".
Clicked the thread, read the full quote in OP and thought it was all reasonable stuff.
Then I read the OP calling it racist. ????
Clicked the thread, read the full quote in OP and thought it was all reasonable stuff.
Then I read the OP calling it racist. ????
Oh. Wow. Fucking lol OP.
Yes, it's embarrassing to see so-called leftists falling for this reactionary shit too.
lol
GhostTrick
Banned
He's been in the previous government and has been a close advisor to the previous president... So yes ?
This isn't necessarily true. Look at natural resource exploitation for instance. Most African countries where profits from natural resource exploitation accrue directly to the government end up having terrible problems in sustaining democratic institutions. A lot of former Soviet satellite states had success with public-private partnerships in dealing with their oil.
If you think they're not at the stage to deal with public-private partnerships why would you assume those states would be capable of fairly distributing the profits of a state-owned industry?
Here's a paper on it: http://www.policy.hu/karimli/PaulinLuone_CombatingResourceCurse.pdf
nvm, this uneducated comment was addressed.
Portugeezer
Member
Le news fake
Yup. As an african, I agree with this sentiment.
And_Gignac
Member
this right wing rhetoric is precious. It's totally the colonized countries fault, not at all the fault of imperialists countries that sacked the former colonies.
Rabid Dwarf 76
Member
Serous question. Should the former imperialist countries be blamed indefinitely for the current state of a country? How much time has to pass before a country should be held responsible for not improving itself after gaining independence?
When the rich countries help the poor countries to develop, time is not the factor
until they stop benefitting from the colonialization
I mean, if we connect Northern African terrorists to the French side of the ledger I would think we are getting pretty close to even...
Have you ever heard something about the world-systems theory and the negative peace?It's not in the interest of France to change the status quo.
OP, what the hell.as fa
Historical inertia doesn't have an expiration date.
Things have gone as they did. Modern economic colonization is a thing, but 1800s stuff really can't be the "fault" of anyone living.
Historical inertia doesn't have an expiration date.
Things have gone as they did. Modern economic colonization is a thing, but 1800s stuff really can't be the "fault" of anyone living.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
France should be blamed for their current actions which are preserving the statu quo.
Most of the former french colonies aren't independent, they don't even produce their own currency, France does. That's without taking into account the countless acts of meddling in political situations (both in front and behind the scenes) with the Gabon being the latest victim.
The thing suggested in the paper sounds a lot like post-USSR Russia aka shifting from public corruption to private corruption (production leakage) were Russia is literally worse off. Big price to pay for setting up institutions that might end up shaky anyway. At least it is advised to sell to domestic investors which is one thing I can agree with.
With a strong planned restructure of the economy (akin to classic fascism) public-private partnership might help or maybe with coops/local companies. Since the short term goal is not cashing out profits, it's thought out reinvestment. You have to go through the mud one way or another, better to do it the quickest and most intensive way while keeping the results owned by your own country.
Rabid Dwarf 76
Member
I have not. I will have learn more about. Thank you for giving me a starting point.
I didn't realize. This gives me a much better understanding of the situation. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Colonialism didn't end with independence. Former (and existing!) imperialist nations found ways to take advantage of these countries even after nominally freeing them.
If you are interested, also check into the idea of neocolonialism.
j_k_redtail
Member
Yep. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama say hi.
Rabid Dwarf 76
Member
I will. Thank you!
Strongly disagree with the bolded. If you're a country like Norway with stable political institutions and an advanced political culture then it's probably fine for resource rents to accrue directly to the State. The resource curse hasn't affected any developed country particularly badly. Where it hits most keenly is in countries with weak institutions and a lack of commitment to the rule of law: Venezuela being a fabulous example.
In a lot of African states you have weak political institutions, a political culture that favours authoritarianism, and a comparatively uneducated population. When resource rents accrue directly to the state then they're typically used to buy votes, create jobs for the party in power, entrench the strength of the party in power etc. It's corrosive to a stable political culture.