From: bross@splatter.nas.nasa.gov (Bill Ross)
Subject: Re: Article: 'Africa's dysfunctional politics'
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 03:45:46 GMT

Relatively rief comments on the responses: 

The ad hominem remarks generally overlook the possibility that I might be
posting the article to learn from the discussion rather than to 'advocate'
its views; however, the attackers seem like they might agree with the (to
me) obvious implication of the article that Western help/interference 
in Africa (including in Somalia) is doomed to failure & that the West
should step back & let Africans find their own way. I posted the article
because this implication appeals to me on theoretical grounds while I
also am tempted to join in the historical effort to 'fix' things.

Mweene: 

Amid the usual ad hominem stuff, a few interesting points - at least
a fact or 2 (as usual also).

>>  [The more successful African countries depend on the former colonist
>>nationalities and Asians; when they are driven out things go downhill.]

> This is nonsense, the "succesful" nations in Africa are Botswana and Gabon
> which depend on diamonds and oil respectively. It seems that the colonialists
>and/or the Asians must have put these in minerals in the ground.

I left out the examples in the article. Too much typing. Interesting
about Botswana and Gabon.

> Kenya depends on foreign AID which underwrites one third of its bugdet

I think Kenya would be viewed as a failure in the article's terms.

> ...Africa is in trouble precisely
> because of conniving foreigners, eg, mozambique, angola, zimbabwe etc...

My guess is that Africa could be a success even with 'foreigners'
on board. 

>>  "These iniquities are themselves being overshadowed by the rapid
>>advance of AIDS, which is undeniably reflective of a deeper societal
>>chaos:

>... Excerpt in Uganda because of the war, the AIDS myth has been exploded. 
>AIDS is far less serious than all these people hope. The unreliablity of 
>the elizer test which indicates an immunosuppressed condition as an hiv 
>case led to ridiculous highs. Eg in 1986 according to these tests (which 
>were mostly not performed), 96% of the Zambia army was hiv+! 

Less AIDS would be excellent news - do you have any figures/references
on the currently accepted numbers? According to health people I spoke
to in Zambia in June, more than 1/2 the women of childbearing age there
are HIV positive.

> Polygamy has saved many men and staves off the large promiscuity that leads
> American men to indulge in such unnatural acts as sodomy. It recognises the
> natural truth that males (at leat virile men like African are) are naturally
>poilygamous. Consequently, prostitution is less of a problem than in the USA.

If men have sex with many women, then unless many men have no sex at
all, some women must have sex with many men or many women must have
sex with at least a few men. Whether or not prostitution is involved,
multiple-partner sex seems to be the way sexually transmitted diseases
spread fastest. The only safe unprotected multiple-partner sex would be 
stable multiple-partner marriages. Somehow I doubt that this is what
virile African men are into. 


Michael Mukasa:

>>  [In 1915 U.S. marines occupied Haiti at a point of complete anarchy
>>after 102 revolutions & coups in the previous 72 years. They left in
>>1934 after the modernizing the infrastructure: roads, health, civil
>>service, national guard & more.]

>I guess this is what you prescribe for us Africans, call in the US to fix
>all our problems and leave the place smelling like fresh roses????

Hi Michael - you & the author are probably both arguing against such
intervention. Note that you were ready to see colonialism when the
description was factual and the bias was the opposite.

> But spewing the verbal dihorrea that
> you did will confuse us as to which orrafice you use to think.

You convict yourself here - calling names (along with harboring 
irreconcilable grudges) is indicative of the sort of inability to 
discuss things and reach common understanding (if not agreement) 
with people of different viewpoints that hinders useful politics 
everywhere. Even on its own terms it fails in some way, since it 
shows your own mind gravitating to the phenomenom you describe.

Bill Ross