AP: Massacre in Congo

[zoony]

It's the North's fault that the South is poor. All the carpetbaggers ancestors should come down and fix this thing.

...

[Prosperity]

You're right.. bad comparison.

The British don't act like a bunch of whining ****es.

....

I don't think anyone from the Congo has actually posted in this thread

[rincewind]

You're right.. bad comparison.

The British don't act like a bunch of whining ****es.

....

Prove that. And, there really aren't any Africans in this thread ****ing and whining.

I'm not going to say that the white man is 100% to blame in Africa, I don't think anyone is... that would be stupid. But to deny that they're aren't a major factor is very short sighted, IMO. They set up colonies and raped a continent for all they could and then simply turned away. They only thing they left were corrupt dicators that they could manipulate. In my eyes denying the impact of colonization on modern Africa is akin to people saying black people in America should get over 400 years of slavery and racism because civil rights happened in the 1960s.

[rincewind]

It's the North's fault that the South is poor. All the carpetbaggers ancestors should come down and fix this thing.

...

Nope. We were nice enough to stick around for that whole Reconstruction thing. You're welcome.

[Jumbo]

I've been kind of waiting for someone with more than a few brain cells working to note that one group of truths (non-African national powers ****ing things there up in violent and cruel sick fashion) and another group of truths (African on African violent, cruel, and sick actions) are not an either/or proposition, but are a refection of how deep and broad the history of violent, cruel, and sick activity in this nation run. As to who "gets the most credit", who the **** cares. It's all a horror show and many people/nations, local and non-local, have played a role. That same many people/nations should work towards playing a role in addressing this nightmare region if we are even going to keep pretending to be a "civilized" species these days with "morals" and "souls" and that there kind of bull****. Katie's doing it. So are some others.

[Capt Rich Fla]

I don't think our government doesn't want to step in and help. You got to step back and look at this thing from all angles. That's Africa....That's going to be real sensative and could easily turn bad. Yeah, they are doing horrific things, but they are Africans. Now how is it going to look when a white American soldier kills a black man, from Africa, that probably has a machete or AK, if he's lucky. No thank you. I say we let Canada take this one.

(and don't mention the UN. It doesn't exist)

[Special K]

Zoony- I certainly am not trying place sole blame on one factor such as the "white" guy.

However, I do think it played a major factor in what we continue to see happening in many African countries. My opinion is that this should be recognized in an effort to understand the mindset. If we refuse to recognize a major factor in the racism and other problems we are seeing, there is no way anyone is going to

be able work toward solutions.

Sure, it doesn't help to point fingers, and its really not important at this point to do so. But understanding the origins of this hatred and violence is important when trying to figure out the answers.

And yes, ultimately it is up to the people of the country to ensure stability and success, but they aren't at that stage yet IMO. They need help in getting to that point.

[Ryman of the North]

I've been kind of waiting for someone with more than a few brain cells working to note that one group of truths (non-African national powers ****ing things there up in violent and cruel sick fashion) and another group of truths (African on African violent, cruel, and sick actions) are not an either/or proposition, but are a refection of how deep and broad the history of violent, cruel, and sick activity in this nation run. As to who "gets the most credit", who the **** cares. It's all a horror show and many people/nations, local and non-local, have played a role. That same many people/nations should work towards playing a role in addressing this nightmare region if we are even going to keep pretending to be a "civilized" species these days with "morals" and "souls" and that there kind of bull****. Katie's doing it. So are some others.

To me thats the central issue, I get annoyed when the first argument is more about about placing blame on the big bad white man than actually looking at the problem. The truth is that Africa was a violent place long before colonialism and the history of intertribal violence goes back as far as human history. at some point dealing with the problem HAS to be more important than pointing the finger.

Btw I dont mean to come off as being disrespectful of keeastman for going to madagascar to actualy do something. I can respect that. if she isnt on a humanitarian mission thing then I apologise I may have misread something somewhere.

[Ryman of the North]

I don't think our government doesn't want to step in and help. You got to step back and look at this thing from all angles. That's Africa....That's going to be real sensative and could easily turn bad. Yeah, they are doing horrific things, but they are Africans. Now how is it going to look when a white American soldier kills a black man, from Africa, that probably has a machete or AK, if he's lucky. No thank you. I say we let Canada take this one.

(and don't mention the UN. It doesn't exist)

We tried , nobody listened, HOtel Rwanda should have been more accurate, the "american" U.n. guy was actually general Romeo Dallaire.

[Special K]

To me thats the central issue, I get annoyed when the first argument is more about about placing blame on the big bad white man than actually looking at the problem. The truth is that Africa was a violent place long before colonialism and the history of intertribal violence goes back as far as human history. at some point dealing with the problem HAS to be more important than pointing the finger.

Btw I dont mean to come off as being disrespectful of keeastman for going to madagascar to actualy do something. I can respect that. if she isnt on a humanitarian mission thing then I apologise I may have misread something somewhere.

You're fine. No worries. I'm working at an NGO over here, but I don't consider myself a 'missionary' in the traditional sense. My work and experiences by no means make me an expert or means I have all the answers. Not even close.

My opinions come from this trip and my previous trip through sub-Saharan Africa in '01. They also have come from lengthy discussions I've had with lots of other people, africans and ex-pats, who have or currently are working in the 'trenches' with various humanitarian aid projects throughout Africa.

My uncle was born in SA and worked the first part of his medical career in Nigeria. My cousin's spent the last 3 years of his life working with displaced people in Sudan and refugees in Uganda. I'm not bringing that up to give the impression that we are saints, we definitely aren't. But I'm saying it because a lot of my views regarding africa come from my experiences as well as hearing about their's. So its not just one single experience that has led to my views on the subject, but a several.

You're right that it doesn't help to point fingers. And I'm sorry I might have given the impression that I'm placing sole blame on one factor: colonialism. I'm not. I'm saying it's a very important factor and it cannot be brushed aside simply because we don't like how it represents us. I think its important to understand the history and colonialism is a part of that history. Violent tribal warfare is also a part of Africa's history..it's actually a part of many nations' histories, even outside Africa. These things definitely aren't mutually exclusive...but instead are a bunch of pieces of the puzzle that make up cultural views in the African continent.

I just get really sad and frustrated when I see or hear people dismiss different cultures or ethnicities(particularly as it relates to Africa) as 'retards' because they're not. Not at all.

My bottom line is that I really wish Africa would get more international attention and support...but sadly, I really don't see that happening any time in the near future and things are pretty much going to remain status quo.

[artmonkforHOF]

No **** this is the kind of incident that I wish we could let loose the fury of our military, I'm not sure you would like it though.

If the US Military did not land in Africa to help stop the genocide of a million Rwandans in 1994/95, then there is no way in hell they are going to Africa to stop killings of a few hundred civilians.

[Perky72]

If the US Military did not land in Africa to help stop the genocide of a million Rwandans in 1994/95, then there is no way in hell they are going to Africa to stop killings of a few hundred civilians.

Definitely not. It's just maddening to see politicians, citizens, the media, all virtually ignoring African genocide cycles in favor of worrying about things that are trivial* compared to them.

*Trivial in the context of the entire human race. Domestic concerns are more important to those who live there, but it just becomes obvious that the human species has still not evolved a strong global sense of compassion. Someone elsewhere recently reposted this excellent list, which can apply to morality, or action, or politics. It's a relative ranking of extending value or rights, based on how closely we are or relate to others:

1) Your own/your spouse and children

3) Your broader family and friends

4) People who are genetically, philosophically or geographically similar to you.

5) All humans everywhere.

6) Those mammals we interact with most.

7) Primates.

8) Birds and reptiles.

9) Fish and amphibians

10) bugs

11) plants and other less complex life.

12) viruses

Seems the modern world's concern for Africa/Africans, and Burmese, etc. ranks between 5-7, possibly even less than our pets. Even without bringing imperialistic or political concerns into it this wouldn't likely change much. It's how it is and makes sense for promoting and protecting domestic interests and individual societies, but it still sucks.

[Prosperity]

kman, have you ever thought that helping may actually not be the best thing to do in the long run? Maybe a dependence on others is a problem. After all it seems like a lot of the problems stem from those societies not developing the institutions (like legal institutions) on their own.

I'm not saying that's how it is, but I usually oscillate between thinking it would be best if we just left them alone, and thinking we have a responsibility to help as much as possible.

[NavyDave]

One would think so, but then she wouldnt be able to try and push her liberal leanings on me by implying that she knows more because she is a missionary in madagascar. I have never been a missionary in a foreign country however I have worked with impoverished and oppressed people far closer to home.

Missionaires abroad have always had my respect. It always impressed me how when the Army and some of our Navy units arrived in some hotspots that missionaires, doctors and people with money who just wanted to make a difference were already there providing shelter among other things before we were entrenched.

I don't see keeastman as being a liberal in this instance.

[zoony]

I'm not defending colonialism or the unjust rule that so many across the globe have been subjected to throughout history. It's truly awful stuff.

My only point is that when a thread about how people killing each other in the Congo goes from 0 to blame the white man in 3.2 posts, it's a cop out.

The white man has been brutalized as well. Hell, every race of people has. That's basically what history is.

....

[zoony]

kman, have you ever thought that helping may actually not be the best thing to do in the long run? Maybe a dependence on others is a problem. After all it seems like a lot of the problems stem from those societies not developing the institutions (like legal institutions) on their own.

I'm not saying that's how it is, but I usually oscillate between thinking it would be best if we just left them alone, and thinking we have a responsibility to help as much as possible.

I think that is a valid point.

Now, don't take this in any way as me discouraging the work kman or anyone else is doing. It is truly an admirable thing from where I sit.

[mcsluggo]

Man, there is wholelotta stupid in this thread!

[Special K]

kman, have you ever thought that helping may actually not be the best thing to do in the long run? Maybe a dependence on others is a problem. After all it seems like a lot of the problems stem from those societies not developing the institutions (like legal institutions) on their own.

I'm not saying that's how it is, but I usually oscillate between thinking it would be best if we just left them alone, and thinking we have a responsibility to help as much as possible.

Good question. And actually, I have thought about it a lot. In fact, it was this question that helped me decide between pursuing medicine or public health a few years back. I have always felt strongly about working in some aspect of health in the developing world, but I could never quite decide on the exact capacity.

I ended up choosing to pursue public health because I saw public health as a broader spectrum-type profession. Instead of just going into a country and doing surgery on a set number of people (which is good, I'm not knocking that at all) then leaving, I thought it would be more productive to go into a country and help establish health programs (maternal health, nutrition, family "planning") that could be eventually turned over to and run by the local people.

Basically in the last decade or two, many NGO's and other humanitarian organizations have begun to see that some of the problems with just sending in ex-pats to do their work, like build something or treat people or whatever, wasn't working that well. One of the reasons was because the program's sole priority was essentially to treat and leave. More and more they began to see that as soon as the missionary physicians, nurses, etc. would leave, the local people would be right back to square one, which was depending on foreigners to run stuff for them. And the hospitals built or clinics set up would go back to crap because the locals didn't know how to run them as it was always the foreigners.

We are now seeing a shift in humanitarian aid paradigm. Basically, many more NGO's are now focusing on program planning (whether it be infrastructure, health, agriculture, whatever) that brings in ex-pat experts to set up and lead the program in the initial stages, but then eventually phase out their involvement and the local people who have been trained in the program would eventually be running the whole thing themselves. This method both empowered the locals to "own" the program and helped ensure the sustainability of the programs.

This policy shift is definitely something I can buy into. My opinion is that people living in the developing world aren't lazy at all (simple observation of their daily routines throws that notion right out the window), and they aren't stupid. However, they are at a disadvantage healthwise, educationally, economically, etc than most of us living in developed nations. I think that many of these people just need to be given a chance, some type of opportunity to help them better their lives. In my work, and I know my colleagues and others in the field, I don't intend to come in and just "do it" for the locals. We do, however, want to give them opportunities to take part in programs where they can become active in strengthening their own communities and eventually lead their communities.

As another note, I don't support just going into different cultures and telling them what they need to do. Some NGO's do that. In order to get local people to buy into public health programs, etc., they have to be based on the needs of the people, not what we perceive their needs to be.

So bottom-line: I am a big proponent of assessing the situation in a community, getting a clearer picture of the environment, obtaining input from locals as to what their needs are, what their health problems are etc., and developing a program (can be unilateral or multilateral) that can be implemented in the community and eventually turned over to the community members themselves. Because at the end of the day, I'm American and I'm coming back home to my family in the States. They are the ones who have to decide whether or not they want to actively participate in building their communities. I'm not going to do it for them. I'm just there to help give them the opportunity to do so.

I don't know the answers to other aspects of development, like legal systems, etc. as that is not what I've been educated or trained in. I'm just talking about my view of primarily the health aspects.

So there you go...probably more than you ever wanted to hear about my philosophy about public health and humanitarian aid, lol.

[Prosperity]

So there you go...probably more than you ever wanted to hear about my philosophy about public health and humanitarian aid, lol.

No that's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. I read this book a while back called the White Man's Burden, which criticized the narrower view of humanitarian aid. I'm happy that the sector seems to have a more long term view nowadays.

[on a side not, I actually wanted to go into public health (epidemiology) a while back because of its broad domain, but I didn't think my skill sets were very well suited for it. ]

[Renegade7]

Africa is never going to change unless our focus shifts towards stablizing respectable governments and building infrastructure. The continent is capable of being an economic juggernaut with all the natural resources they have. If we're going to help them, it has to be about helping them help themselves, no more spoon feeding for brownie points. We gotta teach them how to fish instead of constantly giving them fish, to use that analogy, otherwise things will never change.

At some point because of the Islamic extremism taking root in parts of Africa, the US is going to have to physically go over there, whether we like it or not.

[HailYeah]

There's a whole school of thought that says non-intervention is the way to go, avoid dependency, etc. Many of these central african governments are horribly corrupt, which raises questions about where money and resources would be going.

However, it certainly won't help any civilian if the West continues to ignore these atrocities. In fact, it can be argued that in a place like the Congo, which has seen limited aid compared to the scale of the problem, and intervention forces with weak mandates, the West's ineptitudes actually encourage more violence.

I'd say that the average eastern congolese civilian gets it by now. No one is coming. No one will protect them from winding up on the wrong end of a machete, or from being raped and/or mutilated. Their only options are to A) run for a border or a packed, dysentery-filled refugee camp where their security is NOT ensured, join a militia or collaborate locally, or C) accept death, torture, or rape as a fundamental reality of life. Sadly, for many women, the only real option is C.

Just so everyone knows the facts about Congo: about 4 Million deaths have occured directly or indirectly from war over the past 10-12 years. This makes it the largest loss of life due to conflict since WWII. It is a country the size of western Europe, with a grand total of 300 miles of paved roads. It is teeming with resources including copper, iron, cobalt, and diamond. If harnessed, the congo river could generate enough power to provide electricity to all of sub-saharan Africa. If it were able harness its resources, the DRC might be the richest country on the continent. Instead its been an endless vacuum of death and poverty. The lack of infrastructure and government control has sucked in surrounding conflicts and provided a base for launching raids on innocent lives. New lows in human rights abuse seem to be a common occurence in this part of the world. And there's no way to really expound on that last sentence or make anyone who's not there understand what it really means.

Many of the problems in sub-saharan Africa stem directly or indirectly from the Congo. There will be no "solving" Africa, in whole or in part, without first addressing the Congo.

But here's to hoping those that suggest doing nothing are right. That seems to be what's destined for the Congo.

[Ryman of the North]

Keeastman- my philosophy is similiar, my use of the word retard is more due to frustration than anything else. One of my best friends has a job similiar to yours and she started out working in africa and now works in afganistan, we disagree in that I dont think we should go anywhere that openly says they do not want us. she thinks its her responsability to help wherever she can. She is hugely anti colonial and thinks that ALL the issues come back to colonialism, I disagree with that entirely. To my way of thinking Blaming white folks for doing what white folks do is counterproductive and doesnt really accomplish anything. Its literally the way of the world to colonise.

My biggest issue with NGO's and other aid groups is simple, if we go places and just do stuff for people, they never learn to do for themselves, so in that I agree with you that we need to build infrastructures. But only where we are welcome and in the cases where groups are openly slaughtering people I truly believe that there are only 2 options

1- go in with overwhelming force and utterly destroy the asshats killing civilians

2- Ignore it entirely.

anything else has been proven futile.

[NavyDave]

If the US Military did not land in Africa to help stop the genocide of a million Rwandans in 1994/95, then there is no way in hell they are going to Africa to stop killings of a few hundred civilians.

I hate to say it but President Clinton was right to not send us there.

I just don't think America and haters of the USA would have been able to stomach seeing images of us taking out thousands of bad guys when they were all black and in a lot of cases kids.

The US Media cough CNN, the UN and Europe shamed him into having us going into Bosnia/ Kosovo because of "ethnic Cleansing" which was going on all over the globe out of the hundred of wars at that time.

That was in Europe's backyard and we reported corruption by the French when it came to capturing War criminals, to the Navy and Army times frequently.

[Ryman of the North]

Sadly I agree Navy, its a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont.

Imagine the aclu and other minority based groups outcry if images of us troops canning a bunch of rebels ever came to light, ffs the canadians got pilloried when those paras killed a kid who infiltrated a secured base to steal and got caught ( they glossed over the fact that he had been caught several times and just continued to do it.) some things you just cant win. heck we even have bleeding hearts here who want you guys to send that little terrorist puke who KILLED a US soldier back to canada because he was only 15 when he did it.

[Renegade7]

Wow, man, I really hope a huge reason we didn't step in on Rwanda wasn't because we didn't want to the world to look at the US as a bunch of interfering, racists bullies. Those people were getting hacked to death at a rate that the rivaled the Holocaust, I could give a damn about the ACLU.