欧宝娱乐

Meredith's journalistic style makes his excellent historical account more readable, even if his subject matter is extremely difficult to digest. Other books may provide more detail, but this is the only book I've found that gives insightful overviews into what has happened across countries in Africa. I would like to own a copy myself to use as a reference for future consultation. After reading the entire work cover to cover, I had to ruminate on it a bit before I was able to pull together these thoughts.

The centerpiece of Africa's degradation is revealed to be it's own governments, or rather the megalomaniac leaders who gained control, and their hang ons that form elite classes, for the accumulation of wealth and power. After reading Tokunboh Adeyemo鈥檚 鈥淚s Africa Cursed?鈥� (see my review at /review/show...), I have started to see this mismanagement as a continuation of traditional practices, rather than an aberration. It almost seems that Africa鈥檚 traditional patchwork kingdoms limited the impact of militaristic and/or greed driven rulers. The accelerated nationalism of post-colonialism (along boundaries that did not consider previous ethic or jurisdictional designations) created a breeding ground for nihilistic rulers to consume their own kingdoms. Starting with a minuscule amount of intellectual assets, these despots eliminated the educated, democratic minded, skilled professionals upon whom successful modernization would have been dependent by either forcing them (the lucky ones) into exile or simply killing them, to consolidate their own power.

Numerous wars were fought, with outside sustenance by foreign powers (specifically, the UK, USA, France and Russia, as well as regional powers within Africa) both in hopes of freeing countries from tyranny and in promoting the interests of said former powers. The French come out looking horrible, the Russians opaquely culpable, the US a bit better (probably due to lack of colonial responsibility), and the English somewhat pragmatically principled (which could be colored by the author鈥檚 English descent). Billions of dollars of humanitarian aide are showered upon Africa by the western powers, particularly the US and Europeans, not to mention the lives and livelihoods of the missionary population and aide professionals. Additionally, investors the world over gamble on emerging countries time and again. All of these well meaning individuals and entities eventually have to face the challenge of either supporting the tyrants or losing their ministry, investment or aide portal via failure to comply. And those that do accommodate, et cetera are eventually disenfranchised by changing schemes of the tyrants to further enhance their control (such as nationalizing or de-nationalizing utilities, mines, etc.). Relief for the destitute is ultimately inhibited by the sovereignty of African states held captive by own their rulers. Millions have perished. Millions more suffer.

I have come to believe there are three segments to the challenge of Africa, though I cannot determine the weight of each factor. Colonialism obviously comes to mind, and the continuing world system that favors the stronger countries and locks out African competition in the global market (I found this discussion on pages 684-687 to be very interesting and wish I understood it better), as well as inhibits Africa's ability to procure life saving medications. Africans, however, those in government and those who help them retain power, are also part of the challenge. The injustice runs deep. The revival of South Africa stands out as the only country able to even begin binding it鈥檚 deep wounds and end the warring among factions, though the current leadership appears to lack the wisdom of Mandela who started the peace process. Finally, there is the natural factor. While Africa is blessed with tremendous natural resources, disease, drought, and extreme climates have all played their part in the devastation of the continent.

Amidst all of this, two things stand out to me; 1) Is the struggle of Africa really unique? Surely Europe went through it鈥檚 difficult ages of war, horrible rulers with absolute power, plague and devastation. The US had the colossal struggle of the Civil War, Asian and South African kingdoms have risen and fallen, many or most of which were not known for servanthood toward their subjects. And while history has preserved the story of the elite with greater clarity, the reality is that most people in the history of this world defined success as mere survival. For thousands of years there has been a struggle between good and evil, selfish indulgence of leaders and the needs of the people, health and disease, life and death, peace and war. Truly the wickedness of sin is confined neither to a single time nor place. I鈥檓 not trying to minimize the magnitude of Africa鈥檚 challenges, or deny the need for action, but to put in perspective humanity鈥檚 recurrent penchant for evil鈥檚 enticements and the reverberating affect this has on people and government throughout the ages.

And, 2) Can anyone really deny the innate human capability for evil, Biblically known as sin? Honestly? A debate that even contemplates the possibility man could be innately good seems the luxury of individuals preserved by the triumph of good over evil in previous generations. The cruelty of injustice is vivid in the story of Africa. The thoughts of Elizabeth van Lew, a southern woman who spied for the Union during the Civil War have come back to me. Her observation of the corrosive affect of injustice on the OPPRESSOR, as well as the oppressed was so insightful. While it may appear that some are weak and overcome while others are strong and triumphant, Van Lew hit upon the destructive impact of injustice upon all individuals in society. In the end game, the weak may lose their lives, but the strong lose their souls as well as threaten the prosperity of future generations by bringing about the collapse of the society they seek to dominate. While she was locked in the struggle of the Civil War in the USA, I think her wisdom also applies to the current state of Africa.

"Succession represented for Van Lew... both a catastrophe and an epiphany.

Van Lew's critique of slavery, forged in the firestorm of secession, was a cost accounting of the price white Southerners paid to maintain the system of human bondage. Slavery, she attested, had made Southern whites anti-democratic, coercive, intellectually backward, and dangerously self-righteous... Van Lew wrote, "Slave power is arrogant-- is jealous, and intrusive-- is cruel -- is despotic." Until the secession crisis, she had taken refuge, as so many "gradualists" did, in the notion that time was on the side of slavery's opponents -- that "slave power was losing strength before the increasing influence of honest and enlightened free labor."

But secession illustrated just how far slavery's partisans were willing to go to maintain their power [willing to fight a war, demanding independence from the Union, intimidating any who dared speak moderately against the absolute assertion that slavery, under the guise of rights of state, must be maintained:]. Watching helplessly as moderate Virginia politicians... were ushered off the political stage [by being minimized or imprisoned:], Van concluded that "slave power crushes freedom of speech and opinion." She was appalled to see how quickly the press and the pulpit were co-opted by the disunionists... The "Origin of Secession," Van Lew was convinced, lay in the "false teaching-- false preaching-- corrupt press" of the "slave power"."

鈥� Elizabeth Varon, "Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew鈥︹€�

Is Africa Cursed?, Adeyemo, 2009
/review/show...

Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew, Varon, 2005
/review/show...