Uganda Anti Gay Law

[Gospel]

That would be a recipe for disaster. So many of the problems Africa already faces are the product of arbitrary colonial national boundaries that ignore local realities.

It shouldn't transpire that way if the decisions rest solely with African nations, as I advocate. External forces shouldn't dominate the narrative. As you rightly pointed out, many of Africa's existing borders were delineated by colonial powers, often disregarding the societal fabric of those regions at the time. This has only served to exacerbate the prevailing divisions.

 

[Toni]

Violently homophobic Africans.
Tom

Spurred on by conservative Christians from America (see Jesus Camp).

That is actually true.

In the 90s there was a split in the American Anglican church over liberalization. The conservative side aligned with an anti gay congregation in Uganda.

American poltiicians ans have gne to Afrca to promote and support anti gay laws.

I have absolutely no doubt that this is true.

How is it relevant to the OP?
The Ugandan government has made homosexuality a capital crime. That's about as violent as homophobia gets.
Tom

I think all of us agree that the law passed in Uganda is horrible and violent. Some members simply wanted to remind us that it was White Christians who influenced most of these African nations in dreadful ways.

I think that the concept of Unification of Africa has nothing to do with the OP, so why did you bring that up to Gospel, when it has nothing to do with Uganda's cruel law? As I've already said, it has to do with ending the colonization of the African continent. The reason the continent is so homophobic is due to the influence of white people, primarily conservative Christians who have lied about gay people. Some tribes in Africa embraced homosexuality prior to the influence of these lying white Christian conservatives.

I don't remember the exact quote from the late comedian George Carlin, but he once said something like, "Religion is like a pair of shoes. Find some that fit you, but don't strap your shoes to the feet of the natives". I probably don't have the quote exactly correct, but you get the idea. It was the invaders of Africa who influenced these horrific laws. That doesn't mean the current rulers of Africa aren't responsible, but I think. it's good to understand the historical influences behind these dreadful laws.

If someone were to say they would like to see the US more unified, I certainly wouldn't think they agree with the Republican who made the quote below, that I read in today's AJC. Would you?

Greg Forrister, a Cedartown resident who is in the home inspection industry, said he has always opposed the idea of same-sex marriage.

“It clearly states in the Bible, God creates male and female,” the 58-year-old said. “It’s against God’s law for a man to have sex with another man and a woman to have sex with another woman.”

Gay people and Trans people have been vilified and murdered in our own country. Our current federal laws don't permit hurting gay and trans folks, but if we don't get a grip, we may end up with an autocratic country with hateful leaders taking us backwards to the days where it was okay to physically harm minorities. We are already heading in that direction. Can we at least all agree to unite against that?

I would like to step in here only to remind everyone that under Islam, the penalties for deviating from so called sexual norms are also very harsh and Islam has also had a tremendous influence over the laws and culture of African nations.

Not to detract from the harm from so called Christianity, especially as practiced by colonial governments and missionaries. There's plenty of harm to go around. Let's just not ignore the fact that it's not just a white thing. Or even a religion thing. It's a bigotry thing that uses various cultural and religious traditions or 'traditions' to give the bigotry its cover.

 

[Elixir]

For African nations to realize a level of cohesion and success akin to that of the US, Canada, the UK, and the EU, they must deepen their interdependence and collaboration

That's pretty much how I have seen it. All the cultural, linguistic and political incompatibilities are barriers to unification that could be overcome IMHO, except for the fact that the world powers - Russia, China, USA - are all trying to resurrect/increase/maintain their quasi-colonial grip on the continent, largely by fueling those divisions.

It shouldn't transpire that way if the decisions rest solely with African nations

^^^ THAT

 

[Gospel]

You overlooked France, Britain, and Portugal. While Portugal doesn't maintain 'official' governmental ties with its former colonies, these nations, among others, played roles that have further accentuated border, language and cultural barriers.

 

[Politesse]

That would be a recipe for disaster. So many of the problems Africa already faces are the product of arbitrary colonial national boundaries that ignore local realities.

It shouldn't transpire that way if the decisions rest solely with African nations, as I advocate. External forces shouldn't dominate the narrative. As you rightly pointed out, many of Africa's existing borders were delineated by colonial powers, often disregarding the societal fabric of those regions at the time. This has only served to exacerbate the prevailing divisions.

I certainly advocate for African nations having control over their own international relations, with less dubious help from France, China and the US. But the scenario proposed was of a growing megastate essentially gobbling up surrounding nations; I don't see how that would be seen by the nations thus being gobbled as anything other than a new wave of colonialism. Would the Touaregs currently fighting for a free state in the Sahara suddenly lay down arms if they heard they were to be governed from Kinshasa rather than Bamako now? I tend to believe that the world functions best when nations are small but alliances are strong, rather than when giant nations are created but representation within them is doubtful.

 

[Gospel]

That would be a recipe for disaster. So many of the problems Africa already faces are the product of arbitrary colonial national boundaries that ignore local realities.

It shouldn't transpire that way if the decisions rest solely with African nations, as I advocate. External forces shouldn't dominate the narrative. As you rightly pointed out, many of Africa's existing borders were delineated by colonial powers, often disregarding the societal fabric of those regions at the time. This has only served to exacerbate the prevailing divisions.

The scenario proposed was of a megastate essentially gobbling up surrounding nations; I don't see how that would be seen by the nations thus being gobbled as anything other than a new wave of colonialism. Would the Touaregs currently fighting for a free state in the Sahara suddenly lay down arms if they heard they were to be governed from Kinshasa rather than Bamako now?

I completely agree with you. I emphasized that with each African nation having a voice, things wouldn't transpire that way. For instance, if one nation chose to merge with another based on mutual interest, the creation of a mega-state wouldn't be problematic.

 

[Politesse]

That would be a recipe for disaster. So many of the problems Africa already faces are the product of arbitrary colonial national boundaries that ignore local realities.

It shouldn't transpire that way if the decisions rest solely with African nations, as I advocate. External forces shouldn't dominate the narrative. As you rightly pointed out, many of Africa's existing borders were delineated by colonial powers, often disregarding the societal fabric of those regions at the time. This has only served to exacerbate the prevailing divisions.

The scenario proposed was of a megastate essentially gobbling up surrounding nations; I don't see how that would be seen by the nations thus being gobbled as anything other than a new wave of colonialism. Would the Touaregs currently fighting for a free state in the Sahara suddenly lay down arms if they heard they were to be governed from Kinshasa rather than Bamako now?

I completely agree with you. I emphasized that with each African nation having a voice, things wouldn't transpire that way. For instance, if one nation chose to merge with another based on mutual interest, the creation of a mega-state wouldn't be problematic.

I appreciate the idealism, though... looking at the warp and weft of history, I'm not sure I quite agree, particularly if the nations in question are not exactly functioning well as democractic states to begin with. An alliance between the upper classes of two nations may be purely voluntary on their part, but what about the other people who get carried along? When a Massachusetts and a Virginia love each other very much, you get the Birth of a Nation. But whose nation, you know?

 

[Politesse]

Thinking about it some more, I may be overstating things. No one promised intra-continental diplomacy was ever going to be easy, or without wrinkles. The choice obviously is not between either a stable Eurasian-led unification of Africa or a chaotic autonomous independent unification of Africa, because what we have now is transparently unstable and not to the benefit of most Africans. The damage is done, we have decades of chaos left to contend with no matter the cost. Pushing external powers to the edges of the international conversation may well be worth it in the long run even if some of the immediate consequences involve inflaming more local tensions.

 

[Gospel]

The well-being of every citizen, not just the privileged few, is my primary concern. If African nations begin by asserting control over their own resources and wealth, many have the potential to prosper. Though, wealth doesn't resolve internal and international disputes, much like it doesn't for other affluent nations, this conversation would have a slightly different flavor under those circumstance.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Keep Africa Poor and Dependent Project

Exploited and abused for generations by white colonial powers and manipulative economic structures, there is a growing feeling of solidarity within parts

www.counterpunch.org

Liberating Africa from Poverty Requires Changing Power Relations with the West

Soon after arriving in Oslo, my taxi zigzagged through the city's well-organized streets and state-of-the-art infrastructure. Large billboards advertised

www.counterpunch.org

 

[bilby]

Which prompts the question: could Africa more readily “unite” in much the same way that the United States has, with 50 (in many ways very) individualized states that retain their unique ways, yet are united under one banner that offers the economy of scale, etc of a larger, superpower-type nation?

Americans love to say how unique and individual their different states are, but in fact they are incredibly homogeneous. I suspect Americans should get out more; The amount of variation you believe to be so huge and significant, is utterly negligible compared to the differences between even very similar nation states elsewhere in the world.

Americans seriously need to do a lot more travel; And to spend a lot more of what little travel they do engage in, away from the company of other Americans.

Going from New York to Louisiana, or even to Toronto, isn't "experiencing foreign cultures", even though you might really think it should be, if you have never left North America.

Africa might perhaps one day have an EU style over-arching political and economic union; But it's a very, very long way from being sufficiently homogeneous to even contemplate such a thing today. And a US style single nation? Forget it.

 

[bilby]

That would be a recipe for disaster. So many of the problems Africa already faces are the product of arbitrary colonial national boundaries that ignore local realities.

Exactly. Africa is essentially Iraq, writ large.

No, it's not. Iraq has an utterly minuscule fraction of the division or diversity of Africa.

 

[LoAmmo]

Which prompts the question: could Africa more readily “unite” in much the same way that the United States has, with 50 (in many ways very) individualized states that retain their unique ways, yet are united under one banner that offers the economy of scale, etc of a larger, superpower-type nation?

Americans love to say how unique and individual their different states are, but in fact they are incredibly homogeneous. I suspect Americans should get out more; The amount of variation you believe to be so huge and significant, is utterly negligible compared to the differences between even very similar nation states elsewhere in the world.

Americans seriously need to do a lot more travel; And to spend a lot more of what little travel they do engage in, away from the company of other Americans.

Going from New York to Louisiana, or even to Toronto, isn't "experiencing foreign cultures", even though you might really think it should be, if you have never left North America.

Africa might perhaps one day have an EU style over-arching political and economic union; But it's a very, very long way from being sufficiently homogeneous to even contemplate such a thing today. And a US style single nation? Forget it.

It might be a huge time-saver for you in the future to simply invent some words I didn’t say, and then immediately tear into that imaginary position of mine, perhaps even within the same post. Then you wouldn’t have to waste time reading what the actual fuck I wrote, which, in this case, has nothing in common with the imbecilic rant you went on, for, who knows why.

You took what I actually said, twisted that into an unrecognizable straw man (going from NY to Louisiana is “experiencing foreign cultures?” The fuck? Where did I say that?) and then offered your pompous (and very unsolicited) travel advice. I need neither your ridiculously creative interpretations of what I said, nor advice about how far away I need to get from other Americans.

 

[LoAmmo]

That would be a recipe for disaster. So many of the problems Africa already faces are the product of arbitrary colonial national boundaries that ignore local realities.

Exactly. Africa is essentially Iraq, writ large.

No, it's not. Iraq has an utterly minuscule fraction of the division or diversity of Africa.

It was an oversimplified analogy, of course, and doubtless obvious to most) but in case English is not your primary language, when an aspect of thing A is kinda like that aspect of thing B, even to (especially to) a minuscule degree, one might say that thing B is “thing A, writ large.”

That’s what the “writ large” part means—it’s somewhat analogous to the smaller example, just to a much larger and more pronounced degree.

I’m happy to’ve been able to help you with what words mean.

 

[bilby]

Which prompts the question: could Africa more readily “unite” in much the same way that the United States has, with 50 (in many ways very) individualized states that retain their unique ways, yet are united under one banner that offers the economy of scale, etc of a larger, superpower-type nation?

Americans love to say how unique and individual their different states are, but in fact they are incredibly homogeneous. I suspect Americans should get out more; The amount of variation you believe to be so huge and significant, is utterly negligible compared to the differences between even very similar nation states elsewhere in the world.

Americans seriously need to do a lot more travel; And to spend a lot more of what little travel they do engage in, away from the company of other Americans.

Going from New York to Louisiana, or even to Toronto, isn't "experiencing foreign cultures", even though you might really think it should be, if you have never left North America.

Africa might perhaps one day have an EU style over-arching political and economic union; But it's a very, very long way from being sufficiently homogeneous to even contemplate such a thing today. And a US style single nation? Forget it.

It might be a huge time-saver for you in the future to simply invent some words I didn’t say, and then immediately tear into that imaginary position of mine, perhaps even within the same post. Then you wouldn’t have to waste time reading what the actual fuck I wrote, which, in this case, has nothing in common with the imbecilic rant you went on, for, who knows why.

You took what I actually said, twisted that into an unrecognizable straw man (going from NY to Louisiana is “experiencing foreign cultures?” The fuck? Where did I say that?) and then offered your pompous (and very unsolicited) travel advice. I need neither your ridiculously creative interpretations of what I said, nor advice about how far away I need to get from other Americans.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to add, Americans get very touchy when you mention how little they know about the rest of the world, and will always respond as though it was a personal attack on them, rather than the statement of an objective and obvious fact about their nation as a whole.

 

[Politesse]

Which prompts the question: could Africa more readily “unite” in much the same way that the United States has, with 50 (in many ways very) individualized states that retain their unique ways, yet are united under one banner that offers the economy of scale, etc of a larger, superpower-type nation?

Americans love to say how unique and individual their different states are, but in fact they are incredibly homogeneous. I suspect Americans should get out more; The amount of variation you believe to be so huge and significant, is utterly negligible compared to the differences between even very similar nation states elsewhere in the world.

Americans seriously need to do a lot more travel; And to spend a lot more of what little travel they do engage in, away from the company of other Americans.

Going from New York to Louisiana, or even to Toronto, isn't "experiencing foreign cultures", even though you might really think it should be, if you have never left North America.

Africa might perhaps one day have an EU style over-arching political and economic union; But it's a very, very long way from being sufficiently homogeneous to even contemplate such a thing today. And a US style single nation? Forget it.

And Australians think they know the US because they saw it on television.

 

[TomC]

Oh, sorry, I forgot to add, Americans get very touchy when you mention how little they know about the rest of the world, and will always respond as though it was a personal attack on them, rather than the statement of an objective and obvious fact about their nation as a whole

It's somewhat amusing how upset foreigners get when it's pointed out to them that they often don't know what they're talking about concerning the USA.

But they're convinced that they know more than the folks who live here.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

America is essentially LoAmmo, writ large.

 

[TomC]

America is essentially LoAmmo, writ large.

I need to take bitch lessons from you.
Tom

 

[LoAmmo]

America is essentially LoAmmo, writ large.

God damn; I wish.

I’d be a much better place to live.