Zuma Violated Constitution

[MOON Ki]

It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense. There is nothing white about being ethical, no-corrupt, discipline and have so called maintenance culture. These are stuff that are learnt.

You are well within your rights to complain about "disgraceful" writing.   But perhaps people are simply going by the evidence.

In my case, I wrote about the lack of a "maintenance culture".   If you here evidence to the contrary, then let's have it.   To start you off, let me give you an example, to which you may respond:

Take the SGR.   The Japanese consultant hired by the EAC had this to say to them: "Your obsession with gauge is misplaced; what you folks need to work on is maintenance.  You can learn from us there.".   [And he then gave examples.]  And the facts: When the SGR is complete, it will do at most 120 kph.  Now, once you exclude the "bullet train lines", Japan has mostly narrow-gauge lines---thousands of kms---on which they do up to 130 kph.  Question: has the railway lines Kenya got at independence been an example of anything other that eating and a lack of maintenance?   Last I heard, South Africans (or other externals) had to brought in to keep those lines going.

Let's have your argument for that case.   And then proceed to the general case where you argue that "maintenance" is not an issue for us.

Over centuries they've got better.

And, surely, in centuries we too will be better.  But why should it take centuries?   We don't have to go through what they went  through for "centuries".  Today we can read the same books as they do, access the same information and accumulated knowledge  as they do (especially thanks to their invention known as the internet), send our kids to sit in the same classes as they do, etc.   We can (and do) learn the same engineering, law, medicine, systems of governance, etc. as they do, benefitting (one hopes) from their accumulated knowledge and experience.  And precisely because, rather than start from scratch, we get directly to the products of centuries of effort elsewhere.   Why, then, should we have to wait for centuries?  Was exactly is it that we lack that means we must wait for "centuries"?   [The comments that you object to may be seen as a partial answer to the latter question.] 

We benefit form centuries of history in other places, technology being the most obvious example.   Why can't we do so in other cases?   For example, Kenyan law is the result of centuries of legal development in England.   So is the basic civil service.  So is ... Etc. etc. etc.   We are not starting "from scratch", so why the need for centuries?   Today, every Kenyan, from His Excellency in Stat House to the manamba in Nyalgunga has something to say on the social and economic evil that is virulent corruption?   For a solution, what will the "centuries" bring that we don't already have?   

In any case, our own "visions" don't anticipate waiting forever.   In Kenya we have a (pie-in-the-sky) Vision 2030 (not Vision 3020).   Fundamentally quite possible, but it won't happen.   Why is it pie-in-the-sky that won't happen?   Why is it that when it comes to enjoying the benefits of centuries of scientific and technological development elsewhere, we are ready to do so (and actually do so) right now, but when it comes to how we govern ourselves and run our daily lives, it's "look! it took them centuries to get there!"?  Schoolkids with no food, no classrooms, dying of diarrhea and what-not, ... but, looky looky!, they will all have laptops!!! [What is missing there?]  A mobile phone in the pocket, but the stomach is empty.   Can't run a basic railway line?   No problem; let it go to hell, and then borrow money to build a spanking new one.  Dot, dot, dot.

I think it pains all of us to say "we can do this, but we are messed up in this and that way".   But to my mind, it is the first step in changing and moving forward.  We simply have to acknowledge these unpleasant realities and then work for change.   Simply insisting that the reality is different won't do.    People can talk all they want about "Africa Rising", Africans are as capable as anyone else, blah blah blah, but where's the matching reality?   We should move from what we say for our self-esteem and start working on a matching reality that will be self-evident.  And that reality needs to change----not as a "show" to the rest of the world, but because Africans desperately need the change.   We are like alcoholics: we need to give up the self-comforting narrative that justifies the bottle and face a hard, sober reality ... and engage in reconstruction.     In compute geek-speak, bootstrap the thing instead of moving the screen to where the light is better.

The only way forward for us is to change ourselves.   And it is not a matter of technology, or climate, or help from others (too much about turning West or East for "help"), or centuries of this and that, or whatever.   We can do it right now, if we are minded to.   Which we are not.

[RV Pundit]

I'll repeat. There is nothing racial about all these. The maintenance culture is not ingrained in Japs or white DNA.There are white communities in RSA that are wallowing in slums and dumping garbage.Are you looking for the superficial reason to explain things or do you really want to engage your brains, and understand why things are the way they are, and why you cannot force some stuff to happen like instant coffee. All you'll end up being is a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior. Shocking ignorance.

Talk about the MGR. WB/IFC (white ran) was given by GK and UK the mandate to look for  somoene to ran and maintain  the old rail-line for 25yrs. They got a  white South African crook named RvR. And the white ran RVR didn't care to maintain the rail tracks nor even paint the trains. Maybe the Japs were not aware about that. Why SGR not MGR..that I reckon is a technical and financial debate best left to Kenya and China government..who are putting 5billion USD on the line.

Maybe you guys are messed up. Your thinking certainly is messed up. But Africans will get there. They are getting time very quickly. Thanks to what your allude; there is now more opportunity to move forward than centuries ago.Time when you're talking about changing a country cannot be in hours or years. It has to be in decades, in generations and centuries. African was a raw savage 100yrs ago...and look where he is now...100yrs later. All indicators of progress are up. There is no doubt that in another century, maybe Africa will have caught up with civilization (like white or japanase or chinese) with  10 or 20 centuries of advancement.

South Africa that seem far ahead thanks to small minority will have to find it natural base. And it natural base is the average south africa level of education, ethics, discipline, integrity, maintance culture, thuggery, etc. That is what mathematics tell us in normal natural distribution. Then over the years it will slowly but surely improve the average ability to think, to be ethical, to be disciplined, to maintain stuff and all the good things.

You cannot rush some things. And you must be very blind or have never visited Africa recently not to see self-evident progress.Breathtaking progress. Every time I go to shags I see tremendous progress. Evey time I go to Nairobi or any Africa city I see noticeable changes. Africa rise is real.

It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense. There is nothing white about being ethical, no-corrupt, discipline and have so called maintenance culture. These are stuff that are learnt.

You are well within your rights to complain about "disgraceful" writing.   But perhaps people are simply going by the evidence.

In my case, I wrote about the lack of a "maintenance culture".   If you here evidence to the contrary, then let's have it.   To start you off, let me give you an example, to which you may respond:

Take the SGR.   The Japanese consultant hired by the EAC had this to say to them: "Your obsession with gauge is misplaced; what you folks need to work on is maintenance.  You can learn from us there.".   [And he then gave examples.]  And the facts: When the SGR is complete, it will do at most 120 kph.  Now, once you exclude the "bullet train lines", Japan has mostly narrow-gauge lines---thousands of kms---on which they do up to 130 kph.  Question: has the railway lines Kenya got at independence been an example of anything other that eating and a lack of maintenance?   Last I heard, South Africans (or other externals) had to brought in to keep those lines going.

Let's have your argument for that case.   And then proceed to the general case where you argue that "maintenance" is not an issue for us.

Over centuries they've got better.

And, surely, in centuries we too will be better.  But why should it take centuries?   We don't have to go through what they went  through for "centuries".  Today we can read the same books as they do, access the same information and accumulated knowledge  as they do (especially thanks to their invention known as the internet), send our kids to sit in the same classes as they do, etc.   We can (and do) learn the same engineering, law, medicine, systems of governance, etc. as they do, benefitting (one hopes) from their accumulated knowledge and experience.  And precisely because, rather than start from scratch, we get directly to the products of centuries of effort elsewhere.   Why, then, should we have to wait for centuries?  Was exactly is it that we lack that means we must wait for "centuries"?   [The comments that you object to may be seen as a partial answer to the latter question.]

In any case, our own "visions" don't anticipate waiting forever.   In Kenya we have a (pie-in-the-sky) Vision 2030 (not Vision 3020).   Fundamentally quite possible, but it won't happen.   Why is it pie-in-the-sky that won't happen?   Why is it that when it comes to enjoying the benefits of centuries of scientific and technological development elsewhere, we are ready to do so (and actually do so) right now, but when it comes to how we govern ourselves and run our daily lives, it's "look! it took them centuries to get there!"?  Schoolkids with no food, no classrooms, dying of diarrhea and what-not, ... but, looky looky!, they will all have laptops!!! [What is missing there?]  A mobile phone in the pocket, but the stomach is empty.   Can't run a basic railway line?   No problem; let it go to hell, and then borrow money to build a spanking new one.  Dot, dot, dot.

I think it pains all of us to say "we can do this, but we are messed up in this and that way".   But to my mind, it is the first step in changing and moving forward.  We simply have to acknowledge these unpleasant realities and then work for change.   Simply insisting that the reality is different won't do.    People can talk all they want about "Africa Rising", Africans are as capable as anyone else, blah blah blah, but where's the matching reality?   We should move from what we say for our self-esteem and start working on a matching reality that will be self-evident.  And that reality needs to change----not as a "show" to the rest of the world, but because Africans desperately need the change.   We are like alcoholics: we need to give up the self-comforting narrative that justifies the bottle and face a hard, sober reality ... and engage in reconstruction.     In compute geek-speak, bootstrap the thing instead of moving the screen to where the light is better.

The only way forward for us is to change ourselves.   And it is not a matter of technology, or climate, or help from others (too much about turning West or East for "help"), or centuries of this and that, or whatever.   We can do it right now, if we are minded to.   Which we are not.

[MOON Ki]

I'll repeat. There is nothing racial about all these. The maintenance culture is not ingrained in Japs or white DNA.There are white communities in RSA that are wallowing in slums and dumping garbage.Are you looking for the superficial reason to explain things or do you really want to engage your brains, and understand why things are the way they are, and why you cannot force some stuff to happen like instant coffee. All you'll end up being is a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior. Shocking ignorance.

If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not claim (or even imply) that it is ingrained in anyone DNA.   What I stated is that we don't have it.   So, to the extent that you disagree with me, what you should do is give an argument, with examples, to the effect that, contrary to what I claim, we do indeed have a strong "maintenance culture".   (I hope that's not too difficult for you.) The other emotional stuff that you inject into it----"a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior ... shocking ignorance"---is irrelevant and unhelpful.

Talk about the MGR. WB/IFC (white ran) was given by GK and UK the mandate to look for  somoene to ran and maintain  the old rail-line for 25yrs. They got a  white South African crook named RvR. And the white ran RVR didn't care to maintain the rail tracks nor even paint the trains. Maybe the Japs were not aware about that. Why SGR not MGR..that I reckon is a technical and financial debate best left to Kenya and China government..who are putting 5billion USD on the line.

All that about the RVR could well be the case, but there is also evidence to the contrary.   Regardless, all of that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is this: How did the railway lines that Kenya got at independence end up so badly that outsiders had to be brought in?   (Once you answer that, we'll get to the corollary: on what basis do we believe that SGR will be any better?)

By the way, the Chinese are not putting anything on the line in SGR.   They have lent Kenyans the money, and they  want to be (and will be) paid back with interest.   But there's more: they have also insisted that Kenyans pay (to a Chinese bank) for hefty insurance on the loans; so no matter what, they get paid, and then  some.  For them, it's a win-win-win.

There is no doubt that in another century, maybe Africa will have caught up with civilization (like white or japanase or chinese) with  10 or 20 centuries of advancement.

Again, I repeat: avoid simplistic comparisons of time, given that Africa is already getting the benefits of centuries of development elsewhere, and point me to what exactly it is that we lack right now.   

As for getting there in another century, why not.  It seems it will have so be that way.  So then:  Vision 2030.   Vision 3020.   

[RV Pundit]

I'm glad your dialing back and engaging your brains. This thread was slowly becoming embarrassing.  There is nothing in white or asian or black DNA that denote they are more brighter or more intelligent or more ethical. All these stuff are learnt from the enviroment.

The rail and everything  (left by colonial gov) had to go down. It was just natural. The African (right now) cannot manage it. Not with corruption. The same fate await south africans.

And out of the ashes...the African will rise. It will take time. So go slow and find something else to do. Don't be too hard on yourself and fellow Africans. These things take centuries.

Africa will start building their own infrastructure and manage it well. There is NO short cut. If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.

And yet it won't mean Africa is somehow inferior or dna is messed up. No. It simply mean Africa won't be ready for that. She has no experience running all that suff.  She has no aptitude for that. She has no education for that. She is not prepared for that. Over the years Africa will become more educated, more experiences, more prepared and more advanced. The same with bad leadership and corruption.

There is no doubt that across Africa indicators of many things including leadership and corruption are getting better. The leaders of today may appear bad but the leaders of 50yrs were atrocious. In whole of Rift Valley when Mzungu went round to look for leaders; they could only get Moi and some Maasai with 10 yrs of education. The whole populace had btw 0-3 level of education! These are guys suppose to ran a gov? ran the railway? ran buses on time!

I'll repeat. There is nothing racial about all these. The maintenance culture is not ingrained in Japs or white DNA.There are white communities in RSA that are wallowing in slums and dumping garbage.Are you looking for the superficial reason to explain things or do you really want to engage your brains, and understand why things are the way they are, and why you cannot force some stuff to happen like instant coffee. All you'll end up being is a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior. Shocking ignorance.

If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not claim (or even imply) that it is ingrained in anyone DNA.   What I stated is that we don't have it.   So, to the extent that you disagree with me, what you should do is give an argument, with examples, to the effect that, contrary to what I claim, we do indeed have a strong "maintenance culture".   (I hope that's not too difficult for you.) The other emotional stuff that you inject into it----"a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior ... shocking ignorance"---is irrelevant and unhelpful.

Talk about the MGR. WB/IFC (white ran) was given by GK and UK the mandate to look for  somoene to ran and maintain  the old rail-line for 25yrs. They got a  white South African crook named RvR. And the white ran RVR didn't care to maintain the rail tracks nor even paint the trains. Maybe the Japs were not aware about that. Why SGR not MGR..that I reckon is a technical and financial debate best left to Kenya and China government..who are putting 5billion USD on the line.

All that about the RVR could well be the case, but there is also evidence to the contrary.   Regardless, all of that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is this: How did the railway lines that Kenya got at independence end up so badly that outsiders had to be brought in?   (Once you answer that, we'll get to the corollary: on what basis do we believe that SGR will be any better?)

By the way, the Chinese are not putting anything on the line in SGR.   They have lent Kenyans the money, and they  want to be (and will be) paid back with interest.   But there's more: they have also insisted that Kenyans pay (to a Chinese bank) for hefty insurance on the loans; so no matter what, they get paid, and then  some.  For them, it's a win-win-win.

There is no doubt that in another century, maybe Africa will have caught up with civilization (like white or japanase or chinese) with  10 or 20 centuries of advancement.

Again, I repeat: avoid simplistic comparisons of time, given that Africa is already getting the benefits of centuries of development elsewhere, and point me to what exactly it is that we lack right now.   

As for getting there in another century, why not.  It seems it will have so be that way.  So then:  Vision 2030.   Vision 3020.   

[MOON Ki]

I'm glad your dialing back and engaging your brains.

Anyone who can read and comprehend will see that I did no such thing as "dialing back".  But if it suits you to think so, why not.

There is nothing in white or asian or black DNA that denote they are more brighter or more intelligent or more ethical. All these stuff are learnt from the enviroment.

No, there is not.   Here is what I wrote earlier:

I don't think the problem is that we are fundamentally incompetent or incapable or that we want to solve the problems but don't have the means.

The question that needs to be addressed is why we are nevertheless in such a mess.   In that "post", I offered my "preliminary" conclusion: we simply don't care enough, and I suggested why that might be so.

The rail and everything  (left by colonial gov) had to go down. It was just natural. The African (right now) cannot manage it. Not with corruption. The same fate await south africans.

I don't see why any of it had to go down, or why such going-down should be natural.    And I have even more "problems" seeing why things should keep going down now.

You state that "the African (right now) cannot manage" such things.   So what is the plan with SGR, and the like, for which billions are being borrowed?   Will the Chinese also be brought in to manage them?  Or perhaps the wazungu?

A more general question is this: Why is it that "the African (right now)" cannot manage such things or deal with corruption and whatever?  Given, as you state, that brightness, ethics, and intelligence are not in the DNA,  what is the African's problem---the one that makes you state that even for South Africans "the same fate awaits"?  (Aside: This is especially interesting given that South Africa in 1994 had the benefit of observing the mess of the "1960s-independence" countries.)

And out of the ashes...the African will rise. It will take time. So go slow and find something else to do. Don't be too hard on yourself and fellow Africans. These things take centuries.

I have no doubt that it will rise out of the ashes.   My "issue" is why there must first be ashes.   Why, for example, could South African (and any other place) not improve on whatever they had instead of first going to the "same fate" ("African Way")?

(I will skip the gratuitous emotional stuff and get to the lest sentence.)  Yes, it certainly looks like it will take centuries.    What a pity!

Africa will start building their own infrastructure and manage it well.

No doubt about it.   And when might that be?

If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.

Again this brings me back to the starting point:   

(a) What is it about Africans that makes you sure they will mismanage Europe?

(b) What is it about Europeans that makes you sure they will quickly develop Africa?

Ruling out random and uninvited commentary on DNA---all of which I suggest you give up, for the unhelpful emotional content---you nevertheless seem to be suggesting a fundamental difference.   What would that be?   More generally, why are Africans (according to your theory) incapable of managing (or even learning to manage) while the Europeans are not?  Why should we cheerfully accept the "fact" that Africans will make a mess of things, but the Europeans won't?

The point that others on this thread have noted is not necessarily to do with DNA: at its core are (a) glaring  differences and (b) what to do until the Africans and "ready", as you would put it. The essence is the same one that has produced your statement above.  And one proposed solution is to have "expatriates" do critical jobs, a proposal seemingly supported by your claim that "Europeans will quickly develop Africa".

(So you should perhaps rethink the line of argument that starts with "we are all absolutely the same, because nothing is in the DNA!" but nevertheless  ends with "Africans are like this, and Europeans are like that".)

Africa won't be ready for that. She has no experience running all that suff.  She has no aptitude for that. She has no education for that. She is not prepared for that. Over the years Africa will become more educated, more experiences, more prepared and more advanced.

- Africans have no aptitude to properly run their lives?   I will leave that one there.
- Half a century hardly seems like no experience, especially when the starting point is the benefit of hundreds of years of labour elsewhere.   
- What sort of education and preparation do you suppose they require?
- Everybody is getting more educated, more this, more that.

A question: Would it make sense to ask for "voluntary recolonization" until we are ready, or should we be like children, who see fire burn a person but will continue to play with it until we are ready to learn from experience?  Or should we just get serious instead of making a hash of it while boldly declaring Vision This and Vision That?

The same with bad leadership and corruption.

Are Africans fundamentally incapable of choosing good leaders?   Why would that be the case?   And what is it about corruption?   Looking just at Kenya, there seems to be a clear understanding of what the problem is and an equally clear understanding on what is required for a solution: public commentary, from top to bottom, indicate that; so do the laws that have been enacted and the institutions that have been put in place.   So what is it about the African can that means it has to be "the same?"

[RV Pundit]

Now you're beginning to ask the right questions. A country or continent is a large big ship. To turn it around is not that easy. It takes time. A country/family might have a few bright spots here and there but generally the "majority" will determine the country's or family's fate.

Talk about corruption. You pass the law and do all that Kenya has done. But all the guys from the police, the lawyer, the witnesses, the judges, the court clerk, the pastor and name anyone is corrupt and looking for loopholes to kill those cases. This corruption is true for the country as well as our immediate families. So until the average kenya is not corrupt, it going to be small gains here and there, and lots of setbacks.When will kenya stop being corrupt, there are lot of variables that come into play. People need to have more economic opportunities so they can live  an honest live. This is going to happen slowly as GDP grows slowly. The same with violent robberies. Corruption is just a softer version of kid in Kibera buying a gun and robbing folks.

Another example if you go with leadership. Political leadership. First Africa had to go through military coups and dictatorship. Then some mockery of democracy. Then some real competitive democracy. Then eventually better and better leaders get elected. These things take centuries. No short cut.

So the right answer is to watch INDICATORS. Indicators that measure the mean/average of whether the country is progressing or regressing. What is average corruption level of a kenyan. Not rail day and night about politicians. Nor SGR. What is average education of a kenya or south african. What is average quality of leadership in the country..from guys running a local dip/primary school..to national leadership. Do you have barely literate people running our schools..YES. Are they corrupt..Yes.

I'm glad your dialing back and engaging your brains.

Anyone who can read and comprehend will see that I did no such thing as "dialing back".  But if it suits you to think so, why not.

There is nothing in white or asian or black DNA that denote they are more brighter or more intelligent or more ethical. All these stuff are learnt from the enviroment.

No, there is not.   Here is what I wrote earlier:

I don't think the problem is that we are fundamentally incompetent or incapable or that we want to solve the problems but don't have the means.

The question that needs to be addressed is why we are nevertheless in such a mess.   In that "post", I offered my "preliminary" conclusion: we simply don't care enough, and I suggested why that might be so.

The rail and everything  (left by colonial gov) had to go down. It was just natural. The African (right now) cannot manage it. Not with corruption. The same fate await south africans.

I don't see why any of it had to go down, or why such going-down should be natural.    And I have even more "problems" seeing why things should keep going down now.

You state that "the African (right now) cannot manage" such things.   So what is the plan with SGR, and the like, for which billions are being borrowed?   Will the Chinese also be brought in to manage them?  Or perhaps the wazungu?

A more general question is this: Why is it that "the African (right now)" cannot manage such things or deal with corruption and whatever?  Given, as you state, that brightness, ethics, and intelligence are not in the DNA,  what is the African's problem---the one that makes you state that even for South Africans "the same fate awaits"?  (Aside: This is especially interesting given that South Africa in 1994 had the benefit of observing the mess of the "1960s-independence" countries.)

And out of the ashes...the African will rise. It will take time. So go slow and find something else to do. Don't be too hard on yourself and fellow Africans. These things take centuries.

I have no doubt that it will rise out of the ashes.   My "issue" is why there must first be ashes.   Why, for example, could South African (and any other place) not improve on whatever they had instead of first going to the "same fate" ("African Way")?

(I will skip the gratuitous emotional stuff and get to the lest sentence.)  Yes, it certainly looks like it will take centuries.    What a pity!

Africa will start building their own infrastructure and manage it well.

No doubt about it.   And when might that be?

If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.

Again this brings me back to the starting point:   

(a) What is it about Africans that makes you sure they will mismanage Europe?

(b) What is it about Europeans that makes you sure they will quickly develop Africa?

Ruling out random and uninvited commentary on DNA---all of which I suggest you give up, for the unhelpful emotional content---you nevertheless seem to be suggesting a fundamental difference.   What would that be?   More generally, why are Africans (according to your theory) incapable of managing (or even learning to manage) while the Europeans are not?  Why should we cheerfully accept the "fact" that Africans will make a mess of things, but the Europeans won't?

The point that others on this thread have noted is not necessarily to do with DNA: at its core are (a) glaring  differences and (b) what to do until the Africans and "ready", as you would put it. The essence is the same one that has produced your statement above.  And one proposed solution is to have "expatriates" do critical jobs, a proposal seemingly supported by your claim that "Europeans will quickly develop Africa".

(So you should perhaps rethink the line of argument that starts with "we are all absolutely the same, because nothing is in the DNA!" but nevertheless  ends with "Africans are like this, and Europeans are like that".)

Africa won't be ready for that. She has no experience running all that suff.  She has no aptitude for that. She has no education for that. She is not prepared for that. Over the years Africa will become more educated, more experiences, more prepared and more advanced.

- Africans have no aptitude to properly run their lives?   I will leave that one there.
- Half a century hardly seems like no experience, especially when the starting point is the benefit of hundreds of years of labour elsewhere.   
- What sort of education and preparation do you suppose they require?
- Everybody is getting more educated, more this, more that.

A question: Would it make sense to ask for "voluntary recolonization" until we are ready, or should we be like children, who see fire burn a person but will continue to play with it until we are ready to learn from experience?  Or should we just get serious instead of making a hash of it while boldly declaring Vision This and Vision That?

The same with bad leadership and corruption.

Are Africans fundamentally incapable of choosing good leaders?   Why would that be the case?   And what is it about corruption?   Looking just at Kenya, there seems to be a clear understanding of what the problem is and an equally clear understanding on what is required for a solution: public commentary, from top to bottom, indicate that; so do the laws that have been enacted and the institutions that have been put in place.   So what is it about the African can that means it has to be "the same?"

[MOON Ki]

Now you're beginning to ask the right questions.

Many thanks for the "compliment".   There are quite a few questions there.  I suppose it would be too much to expect answers?  (I have not seen the slightest hint of an attempt at such.)

Responding to your other comments would only take us back to "Square One"; so I won't.   Instead, I will ask you to reflect further on your general remark to the effect that,  in a "swap", Africans in Europe would mess up the place, whereas Europeans in Africa would quickly develop the place.   Once you have some clarity---but it will be becessarily only some---on that, you'll see the point that some of us have been trying to make.

As to time, I see no reason why Africans should have to wait for time to do its thing; to my mind, that's just an "upgraded" version of the "Cargo Cult" mentality.   Otherwise, we are in agreement---at least to the extent that I hope (and believe) that Africa will be better in a few centuries.   So then: let's hope and pray and .... make sure that "our man" is in place?

P.S.   I do plenty of "looking at the indicators", but my observations on hard numbers tend to be dismissed as "splitting hair".   Better Vision 2030 than Vision 3020, I guess.

[RV Pundit]

Sorry I don't have time to answer all your questions. I think once you understand why African will quickly trash Europe while Europeans will quickly develop Africa; you'll have answers to your questions. You need to understand that civilization takes a lot of years. You cannot rush it. Human being is not an antelope who is born running. Human baby takes 18 yrs to be able to stand on their own. Now what about a country of 50m folks. How many years would it take for them to embrace a culture of hard-work, discipline, maintenance and ethics. All which happens with right inputs and environment.

Many thanks for the "compliment".   There are quite a few questions there.  I suppose it would be too much to expect answers?  (I have not seen the slightest hint of an attempt at such.)

Responding to your other comments would only take us back to "Square One"; so I won't.   Instead, I will ask you to reflect further on your general remark to the effect that,  in a "swap", Africans in Europe would mess up the place, whereas Europeans in Africa would quickly develop the place.   Once you have some clarity---but it will be becessarily only some---on that, you'll see the point that some of us have been trying to make.

As to time, I see no reason why Africans should have to wait for time to do its thing; to my mind, that's just an "upgraded" version of the "Cargo Cult" mentality.   Otherwise, we are in agreement---at least to the extent that I hope (and believe) that Africa will be better in a few centuries.   So then: let's hope and pray and .... make sure that "our man" is in place?

P.S.   I do plenty of "looking at the indicators", but my observations on hard numbers tend to be dismissed as "splitting hair".   Better Vision 2030 than Vision 3020, I guess.

[MOON Ki]

Sorry I don't have time to answer all your questions.

I must have missed it: which ones did you answer?

I think once you understand why African will quickly trash Europe while Europeans will quickly develop Africa; you'll have answers to your questions.

That's actually one of the points I don't understand and which I was hoping you would explain to me.   We have ruled out DNA, so why is in inevitable that the African must trash the place, but the European will quickly develop it.

(By the way: There are many Europeans who "object" to Africans in Europe on precisely the same basis as you put forth.    Naturally, those Africans disagree with the notion that they are fundamentally "trashers" while Europeans are fundamentally "developers".    On such perceptions and claims are built numerous problems .... these days "terrorist" and "scrounger"  seem to come to mind more often than "trasher".")

You need to understand that civilization takes a lot of years. You cannot rush it.

I don't entirely disagree with: the history certainly indicates that it has taken a lot of years, and I don't claim to fully understand it.  It is a subject that I have long fascinated with, and in fact many years ago I read Durant's entire Story of Civilization and then moved on to other literature on the subject (African, Chinese, etc.).   One of the things I learned from all that lengthy exercise is that "civilization" is not something that that takes place at some linear rate of the same gradient: the fact that it took some people 100 years to get to some point does not mean that everyone requires the same time. (In science and technology: Here we are, on computer and internet.   The scientific history to get here?)

So, taking, say, Durant's or your definition of "civilization" (which I hope you will give), what aspect of civilization do you think will take us centuries to achieve.  And, also equally important, why would we need that long?   After all, no matter in man fields--science, technology, law, ... even religion!---we have simply "leapfrogged" to enjoy the fruits of centuries of "European Civilization".   What components are we lacking, and why can't we enjoy "full civilization" right now?

Your remark also brings another thought to mind: Suppose a European says that we are uncivilized and backward, that it will take us centuries to catch up with them (in essence, your argument), and that we should give up all talk of equality (based on ability and accomplishments and whatever), and so on and so forth, ... and, being mindful of all that, we should accept "our place" in the world.   Perhaps even have some Europeans running the place until we are sufficiently "civilized".    What would you say to that?

How many years would it take for them to embrace a culture of hard-work, discipline, maintenance and ethics.

From what I saw Lee Kwan Yew do in Singapore, it need not take very long: one simply insists on it and acts accordingly.   What is it about Africans that they should require centuries to embrace a culture of hard-work, discipline, maintenance and ethics?  Or are we to believe the notion, put forth elsewhere, that Africans are fundamentally lazy, undisciplined, incompetent, unethical .... starting centuries behind and requiring centuries to even get the basics right?

(By the way: You should try and keep better track of your line of argument: one minute you are complaining that those who make comments in this regard are making a "DNA argument", which they absolutely did not, and the very  next minute you, implicitly, put forth a "many years" argument to "explain" the very same observation.)

All which happens with right inputs and environment.

Quite so.  And Africans are hoping for the "right inputs" and "environment" to come from where?   

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense. There is nothing white about being ethical, no-corrupt, discipline and have so called maintenance culture. These are stuff that are learnt. Learnt either at home or schools or out there. South Africa I believe will do good or bad as the average south African is! Therefore to improve the country; the whole population has to move along. White nations had their time a few centuries ago when they were like Africans; too poor to care! too poor to be ethical! too stupid to do what appear to be commonsensical stuff.

Over centuries they've got better. Africans will get there. Just don't expect this to happen instantly unless folks were to be put under military or colonial rule. They will evolve naturally. Over many years. And the black African is certainly making progress....

The bolded part is interesting.  Given that you are famous for the sentiment of leapfrogging as MOON Ki points out, by leveraging what has already been figured out without going through the pains that others have had to go through.  Put another way, you do not, normally, believe in reinventing the wheel.  Why should that apply in this case?  How comes Botswana has not taken forever to figure out major aspects of the puzzle?  Is Haiti still turning that corner 200 years later? 

In your point that swaps Africans and Europeans, you are expressing the soft bigotry of low expectations.  It is worse than straight up skinhead racism in the long term damage it does.  It is something I actually believe explains a lot about Africa as I mentioned earlier in the thread.  It is why Africans generally seem to be very tolerant of criminal negligence and malfeasance in the management of their affairs.  Almost a resignation that it will get better on a timescale where they are no longer there to witness; it seems like a miracle to expect otherwise.  I don't think anyone deserves that sort of resignation.

SA after apartheid went in a positive direction with Mandela and Mbeki.  You could point to every indicator and there was improvement.  It was not miraculous, but it was competently managed; those two did not make attempts to capture sections of the state that are independent. 

Zuma, who is black just like Madiba and Mbeki, is just screwing up the place.  Zuma is an intelligent man.  What he cannot seem to control is his greed.  His mother was a maid, as were many black women, during apartheid.  A few short years after apartheid, he finds himself running a family empire http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Jacob-Zumas-family-empire-20150430.  Is he a capitalist, industrialist, an entrepreneur perhaps?  What has he done to amass so much wealth?  I think the answer to these questions is a better explanation for what is wrong with SA than corners that take centuries to turn.

[MOON Ki]

Pundit started here:

It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense.

and ended up here:

If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.

I leave it there.

[Real P]

Black folks in South Africa are disadvantaged. However, this is not unique to South Africa blacks only, and while apartheid exacerbated the phenomenon, it is present almost everywhere. Twenty years after the demise of apartheid, black folks in South Africa should be asking why their governments have been so ineffective in combating inequality, what vested interest these 'leaders' have in maintaining the status quo: an ill-educated relatively uninformed majority who will do as they are told just like Kenyans. More than anything black folks in South Africans today are responsible for their own plight by giving a mandate to politicians who are utterly disinterested in the destiny of their electorate.

[Georgesoros]

You hit the nail on the head. Africans fail to elect people who will look after their interests.

Black folks in South Africa are disadvantaged. However, this is not unique to South Africa blacks only, and while apartheid exacerbated the phenomenon, it is present almost everywhere. Twenty years after the demise of apartheid, black folks in South Africa should be asking why their governments have been so ineffective in combating inequality, what vested interest these 'leaders' have in maintaining the status quo: an ill-educated relatively uninformed majority who will do as they are told just like Kenyans. More than anything black folks in South Africans today are responsible for their own plight by giving a mandate to politicians who are utterly disinterested in the destiny of their electorate.

[RV Pundit]

You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.

I have thought a bit about your analogy.  It provides some interesting insight.  Europe was a shit-hole at some point.  But it changed.  However it changed not merely because time passed.  There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing.  Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else.  It was not an efficient way of managing affairs.  Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.

The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people.  The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom.  He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth.  We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.

[RV Pundit]

What time frame are you looking into.Child will stumble and mess around but he is growing.

You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.

I have thought a bit about your analogy.  It provides some interesting insight.  Europe was a shit-hole at some point.  But it changed.  However it changed not merely because time passed.  There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing.  Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else.  It was not an efficient way of managing affairs.  Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.

The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people.  The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom.  He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth.  We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.

[MOON Ki]

I have thought a bit about your analogy.  It provides some interesting insight.  Europe was a shit-hole at some point.  But it changed.  However it changed not merely because time passed.  There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing.  Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else.  It was not an efficient way of managing affairs.  Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.

The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people.  The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom.  He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth.  We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.

You will never hear of the analogy when it comes to enjoying the material benefits of centuries of "European civilization"; for that, we want to have all the good stuff right now and enjoy all of it as "adults".  (In fact much of the corruption and greed around us is driven by the desire to indulge in a certain type of material acquisition and to enjoy a certain type of "good life" that is far from "indigenous".)  But when it comes to abuses or matters of governance, then the analogy gets trotted out real quick.

The analogy is quite amusing in this way: I recall reading some historical literature to the effect that when the British colonialists first considering having Africans in their armies, some argued that they were like children and would simply hurt themselves with guns.   Naturally, the Africans did not think much of that view.    Today, we will happily acquire foreign weapons and slaughter each other in large numbers.  But when it suggested that we might stop, the argument is raised that Europeans too used to similarly slaughter each other.  All of a sudden we need time. 

And in both cases, positive and negative, you can imagine the hue-and-cry----"racists!   bent on keeping Africa down to better exploit it!---if some Westerners were to suggest that we are simply too backward and should wait for centuries to start leading  the sort of lives we now lead with products that took them centuries to come up with---that we should first go through what they went through.

The most unfortunate aspect is that, while it gives us comfort and we think that others buy it, to the extent that we engage in it, we are simply fooling ourselves and further retarding our progress.  Further, if we want to insist that we are like children, then we should prepare for---and perhaps even insist on---the implications of that notion, such as that the rest of the  world will treat us like children; another "scenario" that would have us objecting quite strongly.  For example, why not restore colonialism?   After all, what sort of responsible grown-ups allow children to run around destructively?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

What time frame are you looking into.Child will stumble and mess around but he is growing.

You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.

I have thought a bit about your analogy.  It provides some interesting insight.  Europe was a shit-hole at some point.  But it changed.  However it changed not merely because time passed.  There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing.  Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else.  It was not an efficient way of managing affairs.  Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.

The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people.  The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom.  He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth.  We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.

Pre-industrial revolution.  The argument I am making is that there are explanations for the changes in Europe that go beyond mere passage of time.

[RV Pundit]

This all have to do with unfair comparison leading to unfair conclusion. You cannot compare Europeans to Africans. Not now. This is due to some historical reasons. I also strongly believe that African will use far more short time to civilize than any other civilization out there. For a fact Africa is mere 100yrs into modernity and yet it not badly off whatever metric or parameter you pick. Most African countries are now moving to middle income countries, our beloved Kenya included.There is sizeable Africa middle class. Africa infrastructure is getting better. Overall live is getting better for many Africans. Yeah there will be setbacks. There are setbacks everywhere including in white world..Greece is fuck.ed for example.

Actually if we were to be honest; Africans are probably going to become civilized faster than any civilisation. Africans were savages 100yrs ago. Africa was due to geographical reason isolated from rest of the world for so LONG. Apart from a few countries along the northern shores...Africa remained isolated unable to benefit from economic, social and political advancement. Asian were generally colonized 200-300 yrs ago. Most of big asian civilization like Japs, Koreans and Chinese have interacted with western world for years.

Africans have embraced civilization like nobody else has. It moving with breath taking speed. You cannot compare white dude whose great grandfather probably went to college to an Africa whose father never went to school. What do you think the illiterate father impart to the African boy? Maybe witchcraft, hunting, gathering, bull stories.

You will never hear of the analogy when it comes to enjoying the material benefits of centuries of "European civilization"; for that, we want to have all the good stuff right now and enjoy all of it as "adults".  (In fact much of the corruption and greed around us is driven by the desire to indulge in a certain type of material acquisition and to enjoy a certain type of "good life" that is far from "indigenous".)  But when it comes to abuses or matters of governance, then the analogy gets trotted out real quick.

The analogy is quite amusing in this way: I recall reading some historical literature to the effect that when the British colonialists first considering having Africans in their armies, some argued that they were like children and would simply hurt themselves with guns.   Naturally, the Africans did not think much of that view.    Today, we will happily acquire foreign weapons and slaughter each other in large numbers.  But when it suggested that we might stop, the argument is raised that Europeans too used to similarly slaughter each other.  All of a sudden we need time. 

And in both cases, positive and negative, you can imagine the hue-and-cry----"racists!   bent on keeping Africa down to better exploit it!---if some Westerners were to suggest that we are simply too backward and should wait for centuries to start leading  the sort of lives we now lead with products that took them centuries to come up with---that we should first go through what they went through.

The most unfortunate aspect is that, while it gives us comfort and we think that others buy it, to the extent that we engage in it, we are simply fooling ourselves and further retarding our progress.  Further, if we want to insist that we are like children, then we should prepare for consequences of that notion, such as that the rest of the  world will treat us like children; another "scenario" that would have us objecting quite strongly.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I have thought a bit about your analogy.  It provides some interesting insight.  Europe was a shit-hole at some point.  But it changed.  However it changed not merely because time passed.  There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing.  Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else.  It was not an efficient way of managing affairs.  Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.

The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people.  The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom.  He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth.  We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.

You will never hear of the analogy when it comes to enjoying the material benefits of centuries of "European civilization"; for that, we want to have all the good stuff right now and enjoy all of it as "adults".  (In fact much of the corruption and greed around us is driven by the desire to indulge in a certain type of material acquisition and to enjoy a certain type of "good life" that is far from "indigenous".)  But when it comes to abuses or matters of governance, then the analogy gets trotted out real quick.

The analogy is quite amusing in this way: I recall reading some historical literature to the effect that when the British colonialists first considering having Africans in their armies, some argued that they were like children and would simply hurt themselves with guns.   Naturally, the Africans did not think much of that view.    Today, we will happily acquire foreign weapons and slaughter each other in large numbers.  But when it suggested that we might stop, the argument is raised that Europeans too used to similarly slaughter each other.  All of a sudden we need time. 

And in both cases, positive and negative, you can imagine the hue-and-cry----"racists!   bent on keeping Africa down to better exploit it!---if some Westerners were to suggest that we are simply too backward and should wait for centuries to start leading  the sort of lives we now lead with products that took them centuries to come up with---that we should first go through what they went through.

The most unfortunate aspect is that, while it gives us comfort and we think that others buy it, to the extent that we engage in it, we are simply fooling ourselves and further retarding our progress.  Further, if we want to insist that we are like children, then we should prepare for---and perhaps even insist on---the implications of that notion, such as that the rest of the  world will treat us like children; another "scenario" that would have us objecting quite strongly.  For example, why not restore colonialism?   After all, what sort of responsible grown-ups allow children to run around destructively?

I get the impression pundit wants to divorce the actions of people from their outcomes.  Though he seems to walk it back a little in his last response.

The real question is why is Zuma trying to undermine the rule of law in South Africa?  Why should South Africans have to put up with him?  How did he become so wealthy?  Even apartheid leaders never reaped that way from the state.