Re: Re: Kenya

[Guest guest]

Africa still has lots of mineral wealth and other sources of wealth. The Europeans did develop many resources, such as diamonds and gold, but few if any sites were exhausted and many are still in operation today.

The real destruction only came after colonial powers left. In some places, the vast parks and game preserves set up by the colonial power were seen as a waste and so countless thousands of animals were slaughtered. In other cases, land is disappearing under housing sprawl and farmland at a great rate.

One of the biggest problems today is that some countries, China being the chief one, is looking for resources and isn't squeamish about how it get them. Most people know that China is working openly with Sudan and other countries to acquire oil, regardless of the nature of the governments of those countries. What most people don't know is that China is by far the greatest importer of illegal timber products. By that I mean china needs wood products and it isn't picky about from where or how they get it. This is causing forests around the third world to be clear cut and not replaced, since there are no laws about that in many of those countries and even if they were, there is enough laxity and corruption that nothing happens.

The same goes for other resources too. Eventually, this easy supply will begin to tap out and demand will cause prices to rise. The US and Europe still hold an advantage here in that we have greater wealth than China, for the time being. However, that could shift sufficiently to allow the Chinese to buy up the supplies they need, for a while. But China has a great many problems that aren't being addressed, so it is possible that they will come tumbling down. The question is, will the West hang in there for the 10 years or so needed for that to happen?

But as for the tribes, very often, there is not sharp delineation between tribes. there tends to be some overlap, especially in more urban areas where tribal borders are jumbled up. Few really large tribes exist, big enough to make a viable state. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of tribes, so giving each their own country wouldn't be a solution. It would simply make the problem worse as all of those tiny countries slugged it out with their neighbors just like tiny countries have always done. Indeed, history shows that the smaller and more tribal a group, the more common violence is with its neighbors.

In a message dated 1/3/2008 1:37:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

"A large part of the problem goes back to the colonial era when countries were drawn on maps in Europe for the benefit of the colonial powers rather than conditions on the ground. The result of that was that nations would created with tribes divided by the national borders, but more than that, it bundled together tribes with ancient animosities.'I have always wondered why parts of Africa simply do not meet and subdivide themselves along ethnic or tribal lines. This would create bigger countries in some areas and smaller countries in others, but it would probable solve the problem of tribal and ethnic warfare. Additionally, the leaders of these areas would be more easily elected and deposed according to the votes or constituency of the people. I suppose, however, that it might be too late for that given that many of the resources in Africa have been plundered. You could not give tribal land back to a forest people whose forests have been cut down, for example. TomAdministrator Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.