If you might recall, a few weeks ago, the government was on the verge of a shut down in midst of a fiscal battle in our nation's capital. For awhile, those politicians could only come up with an agreement for the current fiscal year thus pushing the inevitable to September. What good would that have done? To me, that's procrastination on a large scale. But I digress... I wanted to bring about the issue of the economy because it is on all of our minds. I am not claiming to be a economic genius or in any way able to solve this issue, but as always I would like to put in my two cents.
As we all know, the last couple of years have thrown us into a economic whirlpool. We are trillions of dollars in debt, people are losing jobs left and right, and the economy as a whole has gone down the drain. As of right now, we are slowly starting to recover. The job rate has been at its' highest since the beginning of the crash. Regardless, our deficit as a country is completely out of control. Analysts do say that it will probably take ten years or so, if not longer for us to fully recover from our deficit. I do not think that any country in this world is not suffering from some sort of deficit, which makes me wonder how we rank among all the countries in the world that are in debt. Yet again, I digress.
If you recall, both sides of the right and left spectrum could not agree upon a way to help our deficit and establish a proper budget for the next fiscal year. Of course the biggest problem was the cut backs. Clearly, cut backs must be made in order to alleviate our problem with the deficit. Here's my thought, stop being so selfish everyone. We have brought ourselves at this point so clearly many things must be eliminated. It does not necessarily mean that such programs will be forever eliminated, but until our deficit is clear, non essential programs SHOULD be reduced if not eliminated.
There's all these dilemmas regarding medicare, medicaid, planned parenthood, etc... Those are pretty much the top three that appear to be constantly debated about. Guess what people of America?? THEY SHOULD BE CUT IF NOT ELIMINATED!! If you know my views, I am for planned parenthood, I'm totally for medicaid, I'm totally for medicare, but guess what folks, we're on the verge of bankruptcy and such luxuries are unnecessary. I think that the one thing that both sides can agree on is higher taxes for the rich. Well of course, that doesn't affect the masses but will it solve our deficit? Not even close.
Here's a way to solve our deficit, stop being so selfish about programs that are apparently "essential" because in reality are they essential? We could be living in way worse conditions and yet we whine and complain about what we have. In my opinion, as a country, we have been handed the silver platter. These so called "essential" programs are not really essential at all and are merely just an added bonus to what we have already been given.
So here's my thought, let's stop being selfish, eliminate unnecessary spending on these so called "essential" programs for the time being. If elimination is impossible, scale back on it. When our country no longer has a deficit and is back in its' full force, bring these programs back. Then again, that's just my two cents.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Business of War
Events in the past twenty years or so have often focused around the Middle East. Today is of no difference. If you want to talk about the most current of events, then of course Libya would be the main topic of discussion. It seems that the people of the Middle East tire of their dictators and wish to overthrow such tyrannical rule. What started in Tunisia has spread like wildfire throughout the Middle East. Perhaps an appreciation for the Western standard has got them believing that democracy is what is necessary, or perhaps they tire of their old regime. Regardless, Islamic states such as those in the Middle East do hold a higher regard in terms of regulations than those such as ours.
The biggest event as of late, was the bombing of Tripoli by the Allied forces. Now this in my opinion is ridiculous. My problem with this issue is in fact with US involvement. Why must we as a country stick our nose in almost everything that occurs within the world? More importantly, why must it be with violence? If it was among diplomatic terms that is somewhat more understandable but shooting rockets into Tripoli?? To me, that is almost unacceptable. I can see why the Allied forces would want to take Qaddafi down. Clearly, he is not sane of mind, but regardless what can one do in this scenario?
The biggest qualm I have with this declaration is that we are already amidst a war and yet now we might be on the verge of another. Bombing a city is obviously an aggressive attack that could lead to negative consequences. We, as a country, are already severely in debt. Our military spending is already out of control, and to add this on top of everything else is completely unnecessary. Furthermore, Obama executed this order without the permission of Congress, a clear violation of our nation's system of checks and balances. According to the constitution, only in times when are actual nation is in danger may the president supersede Congress and sign off on a military initiative. Last time I checked were we in any sort of immediate danger from Libya?? I think not.
I guess what they were thinking is that being a premiere nation of the world, we could not just stand idly by and watch as a tyrant killed his own people. More importantly, being involved with UN, NATO, all of those organizations almost makes us "obligated" to so called be involved. Other European nations are considering bringing troops into Libya while we stand idly by. Thank god. We should not waste more money and lives than necessary. Last I heard, we have already sunk in approximately $600 million into the bombings in Libya. That is a ridiculous amount for a war that we are not even directly involved with.
Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm wrong, but as an allied country, I say we vote not to help out Libya. Aid is one thing, but bombing is another. Our country is already in massive amounts of debt and trouble and yet we seem to only want to escalate it even more so? War it seems is a profitable business.
The biggest event as of late, was the bombing of Tripoli by the Allied forces. Now this in my opinion is ridiculous. My problem with this issue is in fact with US involvement. Why must we as a country stick our nose in almost everything that occurs within the world? More importantly, why must it be with violence? If it was among diplomatic terms that is somewhat more understandable but shooting rockets into Tripoli?? To me, that is almost unacceptable. I can see why the Allied forces would want to take Qaddafi down. Clearly, he is not sane of mind, but regardless what can one do in this scenario?
The biggest qualm I have with this declaration is that we are already amidst a war and yet now we might be on the verge of another. Bombing a city is obviously an aggressive attack that could lead to negative consequences. We, as a country, are already severely in debt. Our military spending is already out of control, and to add this on top of everything else is completely unnecessary. Furthermore, Obama executed this order without the permission of Congress, a clear violation of our nation's system of checks and balances. According to the constitution, only in times when are actual nation is in danger may the president supersede Congress and sign off on a military initiative. Last time I checked were we in any sort of immediate danger from Libya?? I think not.
I guess what they were thinking is that being a premiere nation of the world, we could not just stand idly by and watch as a tyrant killed his own people. More importantly, being involved with UN, NATO, all of those organizations almost makes us "obligated" to so called be involved. Other European nations are considering bringing troops into Libya while we stand idly by. Thank god. We should not waste more money and lives than necessary. Last I heard, we have already sunk in approximately $600 million into the bombings in Libya. That is a ridiculous amount for a war that we are not even directly involved with.
Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm wrong, but as an allied country, I say we vote not to help out Libya. Aid is one thing, but bombing is another. Our country is already in massive amounts of debt and trouble and yet we seem to only want to escalate it even more so? War it seems is a profitable business.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Stagnation
Upon listening to this incredibly interesting interview on NPR, I was automatically stricken with thought. Later on that night, I actually read the article in which the NPR interview was based upon. Now, one must be wondering, what exactly am I ranting about? The article can be defined simply as the social science bias of liberalism. Among the community of Social Scientists, it appears that most take a staunchly liberal stance and thus for the most part, offer the same opinions as each other without any protest. Thus, how is one to propagate knowledge when only one point of view is put forward and agreed upon on an almost unanimous basis? The author termed this the "tribal moral community," which I personally think is a great term to define this idea.
I personally can contest to the idea of prevalent liberalism from a Social Scientist point of view. Coming from a Social Sciences background, I was clearly raised with a liberal point of view. I can attest to the ideology that most universities especially thrive under this so called liberal base. Academics alike tend to think on a liberal basis and when spreading their knowledge, so comes their political stances and ideologies. As such, a so called "tribal moral community" is created in which one and all agree upon said stances and therefore no argument will be brought up against it. Doesn't this whole idea go against what our forefathers wanted us to do? Instead of passively following the crowd, they wanted us to challenge each other intellectually to bring about varying points. If all were in consensus on a said topic then no one would bring about contradictory points to explore said topic and thus a whole world of knowledge could quite possibly be lost. I might be exaggerating the point, but regardless, a completely differentiating view is thus ignored and never even explored in the first place. Where does that leave academia?
In this sense, academia thus becomes a stagnant pool, at least among the social sciences.
I personally can contest to the idea of prevalent liberalism from a Social Scientist point of view. Coming from a Social Sciences background, I was clearly raised with a liberal point of view. I can attest to the ideology that most universities especially thrive under this so called liberal base. Academics alike tend to think on a liberal basis and when spreading their knowledge, so comes their political stances and ideologies. As such, a so called "tribal moral community" is created in which one and all agree upon said stances and therefore no argument will be brought up against it. Doesn't this whole idea go against what our forefathers wanted us to do? Instead of passively following the crowd, they wanted us to challenge each other intellectually to bring about varying points. If all were in consensus on a said topic then no one would bring about contradictory points to explore said topic and thus a whole world of knowledge could quite possibly be lost. I might be exaggerating the point, but regardless, a completely differentiating view is thus ignored and never even explored in the first place. Where does that leave academia?
In this sense, academia thus becomes a stagnant pool, at least among the social sciences.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Technological Machinations of a False Reality
Much can be said of the title of my post, but the topic itself is simple, it concerns our reliance upon technology and the false realities we have created as such. The concern is that our society is slipping into a downward spiral toward a self perpetuating degradation of reality. What do I mean by this? Our reliance (including myself) upon those technological marvels have only increased ten fold and will only increase to the point where we have lost our sense of self and the natural beauty that is our reality. I foresee that there will no longer be a reality but a so called "virtual reality" that will come to be in the future.
If push come to shove and this were the case, have we thus lost our identities as human beings? Maybe not entirely true, but in reality, what makes us unique will be lost. How so? Simply said, our societal reliance said technological marvels are numbing our brains. It is turning it into putty (so to speak). We are consistently bombarded day by day with mindless dribble that fry our minds with junk that we do not need. It clouds our minds with superficial ideologies. It does not allow us to think for ourselves, instead it molds this false structure that we believe to be true, when in reality, is it? Our ability to create us as unique individuals has totally become crafted into an art. One after the other we are simply crafted down an assembly line and pushed into the world.
Is the media to blame or is our self susceptibility?? I would say a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. The media is a multi billion dollar business, fine tuned and pruned to "take care" of the masses. It is the mechanism to which has so finely crafted an art of mind control. Now this may be an extreme, but perhaps it has taken the art so well that we do not even question it. Maybe I'm not giving us the benefit of the doubt... This may be true, but what else is true is that kids today do not think for themselves. I am appalled how children today do not know the simplest of information nor do they even care to know so. The ignorant nature of these kids reminds me how damned our future really is.
To think for ourselves?? Is that really so hard?? We follow a predetermined path and this is what disturbs me most. This generation does not have the capability to think for themselves. Does this apply to all? No, of course not, but I would say it is applicable to the majority. Our shortcomings (or should I say progressions) with technology and the inability to find oneself has caused this. One step, two steps, three steps, and before you know it we are lost in a false reality. A belief that all is well with the world when in reality, is it? Are you an individual or are you just another one of the molded masses eerily following what has been shoved into your mouths for what appears to be an eternity?? Questioning is something that I implore, but sometimes it is easier to just accept.
So I say this, we do live an easy life in comparison to our ancestors. Perhaps now is the time to go outside and take life for what it is. Think for oneself and do not let the pressure of others bully you into the belief that you are not an individual. Our individuality is what makes us human is it not? Every person on this Earth does not have the exact same strands of genes, nor were they raised in the exact same manner. This means that there are billions of unique personalities around the world that perhaps need to find self. This loss of dignity and self should not be something to let go of. Yes it may be strange, yes it may hurt, yes it may be frightening, but perhaps these are the emotions that we were created to feel. The full spectrum of the human experience. I say take a breath, look outside, escape from the fallacies that were created to stimulate the pleasurable centers of the brain, and thus render us completely useless. Most importantly, think.
If push come to shove and this were the case, have we thus lost our identities as human beings? Maybe not entirely true, but in reality, what makes us unique will be lost. How so? Simply said, our societal reliance said technological marvels are numbing our brains. It is turning it into putty (so to speak). We are consistently bombarded day by day with mindless dribble that fry our minds with junk that we do not need. It clouds our minds with superficial ideologies. It does not allow us to think for ourselves, instead it molds this false structure that we believe to be true, when in reality, is it? Our ability to create us as unique individuals has totally become crafted into an art. One after the other we are simply crafted down an assembly line and pushed into the world.
Is the media to blame or is our self susceptibility?? I would say a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. The media is a multi billion dollar business, fine tuned and pruned to "take care" of the masses. It is the mechanism to which has so finely crafted an art of mind control. Now this may be an extreme, but perhaps it has taken the art so well that we do not even question it. Maybe I'm not giving us the benefit of the doubt... This may be true, but what else is true is that kids today do not think for themselves. I am appalled how children today do not know the simplest of information nor do they even care to know so. The ignorant nature of these kids reminds me how damned our future really is.
To think for ourselves?? Is that really so hard?? We follow a predetermined path and this is what disturbs me most. This generation does not have the capability to think for themselves. Does this apply to all? No, of course not, but I would say it is applicable to the majority. Our shortcomings (or should I say progressions) with technology and the inability to find oneself has caused this. One step, two steps, three steps, and before you know it we are lost in a false reality. A belief that all is well with the world when in reality, is it? Are you an individual or are you just another one of the molded masses eerily following what has been shoved into your mouths for what appears to be an eternity?? Questioning is something that I implore, but sometimes it is easier to just accept.
So I say this, we do live an easy life in comparison to our ancestors. Perhaps now is the time to go outside and take life for what it is. Think for oneself and do not let the pressure of others bully you into the belief that you are not an individual. Our individuality is what makes us human is it not? Every person on this Earth does not have the exact same strands of genes, nor were they raised in the exact same manner. This means that there are billions of unique personalities around the world that perhaps need to find self. This loss of dignity and self should not be something to let go of. Yes it may be strange, yes it may hurt, yes it may be frightening, but perhaps these are the emotions that we were created to feel. The full spectrum of the human experience. I say take a breath, look outside, escape from the fallacies that were created to stimulate the pleasurable centers of the brain, and thus render us completely useless. Most importantly, think.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
A Continual Trend of Negligence
All basic ideals in this world seem to revolve around this ideology of so called religion. I will be the first to say that I am not a religious person. I consider myself a agnostic if anything. I also consider myself a partial Buddhist. I find Buddhist fundamentals the most intriguing as well as the most likely to what that higher being would want us humans to achieve. As said, I have a problem with organized religion for that one sole reason, the fact that it is organized and that it has strayed much from its' original roots.
My biggest problem lies in the two most persevering as well as wide spread religious denominations out there... I bet you all can guess what it is without me even saying it. I for one am more against Christianity than I am for Islam but both maintain their problems. I firmly believe that the origins of both were more humble in comparison to what they have become today. Furthermore, the beliefs of both religions have similarly righteous views that have been taken askew today. Some of these beliefs are of course outdated in our modern times.. You know those things about stoning women for certain behaviors, or cutting off someone's hand for stealing (eye for an eye). I digress.. The point I want to make is that the basic fundamentals of all religions basically preach the same ideology but expressed in different manners. All religions basically ask us to live a moral life. A morally righteous life is pretty simple in the grand scheme since every religions' definition of morally just is practically the same. Of course they do not want human kind to steal, kill, lie, or whatever it may be. It's a simple standard that has been set across human history, societies, and cultural as the "just" way to live.
Here's what gets me... The origins of all these religions preach just ways to live such as not killing and so on, and yet there has been so many religious wars. We all of course have heard of such overt wars as the crusades and of course not as overt "religious" wars as the current ones that we face today. What I can't comprehend is how far we have strayed from the origins of these religions. Now, I am not to say that I am completely knowledgeable of every religion around the world but judging by my experience and what I do know, isn't this all a contradiction? If religion asks you to stray away from violence why further propagate violence for your cause? This is the biggest issue that bothers me about organized religion most especially ones that like to preach non stop (I bet you all know which religion I am focusing on). I understand that by preaching to the people you are so called "saving" their souls but perhaps your religion isn't exactly the most righteous one for said person or groups of people. How can you force someone to believe in something, and if they do not follow, to do it by force?? Does that not repudiate every single value that you were taught in your holy books? The intentions may be pure but it leads to not so pure actions. These actions do not sanctify your name for your religion in fact it only taints the name even further.
What gets me more is this branding of religions as well. In our country, Islam is of course branded as a religion of so called "evil." Has anyone ever thought about researching the fundamentals of Islam before being so quick to judge? We all perceive the concepts of Islam as seen through the eyes of the media. The media in itself distorts the images of reality and thus plays us as fools. Those so called "extremists" or religious fundamentalists do not encompass all of Islam as a entity. In fact, they remain few and far in between. Terms such as "jihad" are openly thrown around when no one really has an idea what the original intentions of a jihad are. Why bother? I guess we just want to find a common enemy and focus all our intentions on said enemy, yet remaining ignorant in the process. This goes both ways as well as I know there are many a die hard Muslim that could say the same about a Christian and so on and so forth.
It's a truly paradoxical idea to me... I can't understand why people would say that they are true believers yet act so much against the fact. If you truly believed in your faith, you would not act the way that you do today. This frenzied ideology only increases with the crowd. As the numbers grow, the group mentality grows and the ideologies only become more and more twisted. It's like playing the game of telephone.. Perhaps the original intentions are still there but as the message goes down the line the original ideology gets twisted and taken out of proportion. Maybe I am wrong, but I firmly believe that people bring the worst of all religions... I believe that religion is necessary but in a sense, people as always have brought it into corruption..
My biggest problem lies in the two most persevering as well as wide spread religious denominations out there... I bet you all can guess what it is without me even saying it. I for one am more against Christianity than I am for Islam but both maintain their problems. I firmly believe that the origins of both were more humble in comparison to what they have become today. Furthermore, the beliefs of both religions have similarly righteous views that have been taken askew today. Some of these beliefs are of course outdated in our modern times.. You know those things about stoning women for certain behaviors, or cutting off someone's hand for stealing (eye for an eye). I digress.. The point I want to make is that the basic fundamentals of all religions basically preach the same ideology but expressed in different manners. All religions basically ask us to live a moral life. A morally righteous life is pretty simple in the grand scheme since every religions' definition of morally just is practically the same. Of course they do not want human kind to steal, kill, lie, or whatever it may be. It's a simple standard that has been set across human history, societies, and cultural as the "just" way to live.
Here's what gets me... The origins of all these religions preach just ways to live such as not killing and so on, and yet there has been so many religious wars. We all of course have heard of such overt wars as the crusades and of course not as overt "religious" wars as the current ones that we face today. What I can't comprehend is how far we have strayed from the origins of these religions. Now, I am not to say that I am completely knowledgeable of every religion around the world but judging by my experience and what I do know, isn't this all a contradiction? If religion asks you to stray away from violence why further propagate violence for your cause? This is the biggest issue that bothers me about organized religion most especially ones that like to preach non stop (I bet you all know which religion I am focusing on). I understand that by preaching to the people you are so called "saving" their souls but perhaps your religion isn't exactly the most righteous one for said person or groups of people. How can you force someone to believe in something, and if they do not follow, to do it by force?? Does that not repudiate every single value that you were taught in your holy books? The intentions may be pure but it leads to not so pure actions. These actions do not sanctify your name for your religion in fact it only taints the name even further.
What gets me more is this branding of religions as well. In our country, Islam is of course branded as a religion of so called "evil." Has anyone ever thought about researching the fundamentals of Islam before being so quick to judge? We all perceive the concepts of Islam as seen through the eyes of the media. The media in itself distorts the images of reality and thus plays us as fools. Those so called "extremists" or religious fundamentalists do not encompass all of Islam as a entity. In fact, they remain few and far in between. Terms such as "jihad" are openly thrown around when no one really has an idea what the original intentions of a jihad are. Why bother? I guess we just want to find a common enemy and focus all our intentions on said enemy, yet remaining ignorant in the process. This goes both ways as well as I know there are many a die hard Muslim that could say the same about a Christian and so on and so forth.
It's a truly paradoxical idea to me... I can't understand why people would say that they are true believers yet act so much against the fact. If you truly believed in your faith, you would not act the way that you do today. This frenzied ideology only increases with the crowd. As the numbers grow, the group mentality grows and the ideologies only become more and more twisted. It's like playing the game of telephone.. Perhaps the original intentions are still there but as the message goes down the line the original ideology gets twisted and taken out of proportion. Maybe I am wrong, but I firmly believe that people bring the worst of all religions... I believe that religion is necessary but in a sense, people as always have brought it into corruption..
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Modernity and Death
With our current modernized world only further diving into the abyss of progression, what becomes of our own existence as we as humanity only further entrench ourselves as such? The problem with modernity and technology is the idea that our existence becomes further stretched from what we were created and capable of doing in the first place.
What do I mean by that? Simply put, the stresses and other burdens placed on us in our present society only further implement the eventual degradation of our society. Again I state that our bodies today is composed of our Neanderthal self. Not much has really changed. If you consider it, their stresses during that time mostly composed of searching for food. Consider the modern man and all of his burdens. He is compelled to succeed in society to not only climb the social strata, but to bask in wealth and to in a sense climb to the top of the so called "food chain." He has many options to consider, many options to weigh, many a burden to hold. Think of it this way, only in the past century has their been a considerable increase in diseases both mental as well as physical. This change in lifestyle is a huge impetus for such a problem. Modernity, technology, and progression has a advantage admittedly but it also carries its' problems.
Everything in life can be described as a double edged sword and I believe that this is no different. Furthermore, with the progression of our own demise comes the technological tools that will ultimately breed our own destruction. What I mean is said tools of destruction such as the nuclear bomb and what not. Arguably, humans are naturally violent and will fight in times of defense or in times of need, but violence on such a mass scale has never been conceived until this century. Taken in terms of time and space, not even a speck of human existence were we able to do such horrible things to each other. But now... In this massive age of technological advancement.. In one century, we have created weapons of mass destruction. Who knows what the future will hold? One second, and for all we know, we could all be obliterated into a speck of nothing.
Arguably, I am not suggesting that we return to our primordial days. I know that idea is obviously impossible. In reality, I am not suggesting a change in lifestyle. I know I couldn't do it, and I know no one else could do it. We are all entrenched in this superficial world as am I. All I'm suggesting is that we take a step back and look at our lives. What really is important? Look at the youth today, they bask themselves in a virtual world and let the outdoors go to waste. Again, I am guilty of such as well. We live in our technologies and cannot live without it. I firmly believe that a completely virtual world is basically our future. There exists no more reality as we view it. Reality merely becomes a figment of one's imagination. A creation. A projection. A fallacy.
What do I mean by that? Simply put, the stresses and other burdens placed on us in our present society only further implement the eventual degradation of our society. Again I state that our bodies today is composed of our Neanderthal self. Not much has really changed. If you consider it, their stresses during that time mostly composed of searching for food. Consider the modern man and all of his burdens. He is compelled to succeed in society to not only climb the social strata, but to bask in wealth and to in a sense climb to the top of the so called "food chain." He has many options to consider, many options to weigh, many a burden to hold. Think of it this way, only in the past century has their been a considerable increase in diseases both mental as well as physical. This change in lifestyle is a huge impetus for such a problem. Modernity, technology, and progression has a advantage admittedly but it also carries its' problems.
Everything in life can be described as a double edged sword and I believe that this is no different. Furthermore, with the progression of our own demise comes the technological tools that will ultimately breed our own destruction. What I mean is said tools of destruction such as the nuclear bomb and what not. Arguably, humans are naturally violent and will fight in times of defense or in times of need, but violence on such a mass scale has never been conceived until this century. Taken in terms of time and space, not even a speck of human existence were we able to do such horrible things to each other. But now... In this massive age of technological advancement.. In one century, we have created weapons of mass destruction. Who knows what the future will hold? One second, and for all we know, we could all be obliterated into a speck of nothing.
Arguably, I am not suggesting that we return to our primordial days. I know that idea is obviously impossible. In reality, I am not suggesting a change in lifestyle. I know I couldn't do it, and I know no one else could do it. We are all entrenched in this superficial world as am I. All I'm suggesting is that we take a step back and look at our lives. What really is important? Look at the youth today, they bask themselves in a virtual world and let the outdoors go to waste. Again, I am guilty of such as well. We live in our technologies and cannot live without it. I firmly believe that a completely virtual world is basically our future. There exists no more reality as we view it. Reality merely becomes a figment of one's imagination. A creation. A projection. A fallacy.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
A War Within
The tyrannies and atrocities currently, as well as for the past couple of decades, that are being committed in Africa is indeed a dynamic problem. Most of which are perpetuated by age old embittered battles of race, politics, and so on. This in itself can only be further amplified by the colonial powers, which leaves us to Africa today. In my past blog, I posed the question of how and why the nations that are in power today, ended up in power. How did those countries far surpass those such as the ones in the continent of Africa?? So here I pose another question, after independence, how is it that most African nations are still struggling when under the rule of their own people?? What has brought about their demise so to speak??
This is simply answered than most would like to think. Simply said, the answer to the question is one simple word: racial injustice. In this sense, a false sense of racial injustice perpetuated by common place stereotypes, mitigated by leaders. This sounds simpler said than done. Basically, if one were to rise up and rally a group of people, one must create a scapegoat in order to rally said troops. Hilter did it. So did other so called "radical" leaders throughout history. Yet again, it is not as simple as that.
Let's put it this way, as the colonial powers left their posts in the former colonies, they also left Africa with barely anything to stabilize themselves with. Structurally, Africa was a mess. Most importantly though, there was few and far between that could potentially lead the nations to prosperity. There were, of course, the couple that did have an education and that did take the opportunity to thus become tyrants within their nations. I will say it over and over again, education can make or break a group of people. In Africa's case, their lack of education has in a way brought about their demise.
With the tyrants in place and the majority of people uneducated, poor, starving, and everything in between, this sets up the most perfect situation for one to rule a nation. In this case, a handful to rule a continent. Tyrants are more or less and in this case a dictator. Perhaps in this sense, the worse of it's kind. Greed rules their power and they could not care about the welfare of their people. Perhaps to them, the injustice that they had faced calls for a bitter sort of rule, but this does not mean that the people should suffer for it.
For a dictator to come into power, one must need a catch. I guess in a way you could call it a scapegoat, but more or less, it is not such. In some cases, such as Nazi German, or even Rwanda, race became the biggest factor. Let me cite Rwanda as an example. The Hutus and Tutsis have and for hundreds of years prior to the genocide remained in absolute peace with each other. There was no antipathy, and nothing of that sort. In fact, they got along just fine. First off, the colonists did sort of stir up the beginnings of the racial strife that came in between the two, but it was only further increased by the tyrants themselves as well as the people.
These racial conflicts can only be mirrored by what occurred in the most infamous of genocides, the Holocaust. Similar to that, the Rwandan conflict used the Tutsi people as a scapegoat. The Hutu people claimed that the Tutsi minority held a monopoly of power and thus brought their country and their people to the ground. This similar formula as we all know was used during the regime of Nazi Germany. Has anything really changed? It seems that one event seems to only mirror the other and in the end, war never changes.....
This is simply answered than most would like to think. Simply said, the answer to the question is one simple word: racial injustice. In this sense, a false sense of racial injustice perpetuated by common place stereotypes, mitigated by leaders. This sounds simpler said than done. Basically, if one were to rise up and rally a group of people, one must create a scapegoat in order to rally said troops. Hilter did it. So did other so called "radical" leaders throughout history. Yet again, it is not as simple as that.
Let's put it this way, as the colonial powers left their posts in the former colonies, they also left Africa with barely anything to stabilize themselves with. Structurally, Africa was a mess. Most importantly though, there was few and far between that could potentially lead the nations to prosperity. There were, of course, the couple that did have an education and that did take the opportunity to thus become tyrants within their nations. I will say it over and over again, education can make or break a group of people. In Africa's case, their lack of education has in a way brought about their demise.
With the tyrants in place and the majority of people uneducated, poor, starving, and everything in between, this sets up the most perfect situation for one to rule a nation. In this case, a handful to rule a continent. Tyrants are more or less and in this case a dictator. Perhaps in this sense, the worse of it's kind. Greed rules their power and they could not care about the welfare of their people. Perhaps to them, the injustice that they had faced calls for a bitter sort of rule, but this does not mean that the people should suffer for it.
For a dictator to come into power, one must need a catch. I guess in a way you could call it a scapegoat, but more or less, it is not such. In some cases, such as Nazi German, or even Rwanda, race became the biggest factor. Let me cite Rwanda as an example. The Hutus and Tutsis have and for hundreds of years prior to the genocide remained in absolute peace with each other. There was no antipathy, and nothing of that sort. In fact, they got along just fine. First off, the colonists did sort of stir up the beginnings of the racial strife that came in between the two, but it was only further increased by the tyrants themselves as well as the people.
These racial conflicts can only be mirrored by what occurred in the most infamous of genocides, the Holocaust. Similar to that, the Rwandan conflict used the Tutsi people as a scapegoat. The Hutu people claimed that the Tutsi minority held a monopoly of power and thus brought their country and their people to the ground. This similar formula as we all know was used during the regime of Nazi Germany. Has anything really changed? It seems that one event seems to only mirror the other and in the end, war never changes.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
