Print

Print


On Wed, 31 May 1995, Alan Collins wrote:
 
> On Tue, 30 May 1995,   W H Ashley said:
> >>
> A hundred years ago the history of Africa was written with the technology
> of the Machine Gun, We were not up to speed and consequently found
> our Continent in the control (physically and economically) of others.
> <<
>
> I am amused at the use of the word 'our' by people who have, more often
> that not, never set foot on the African continent.
 
Now, on what basis do you assume that the writer had never set foot in
Africa?
 
 I hasten to add that I do
> not think this is wrong or presumptuous - merely amusing.  The implication
> is usually that the 'our' excludes Caucasians.
 
True, we tend not to think of the whites in Africa as "real" Africans.
Personlly, I think of the Boers as Africans, but I don't think of the
English whites in S. A. as African, even though they may have been born
there.  I think the difference is that I have the impression that the
English, no matter where they were born, tend to think of England as
"home", but the Boers think of Africa as there home.
 
 
Last week in the New York Times there was an article about some of the
Boers moving to other parts of Africa to farm - Uganda, for example.  The
gov't of S.A. and the gov'ts of these several countries are negotiating
an agreement to allow this.  I find this quite amazing, in light of the
history of S.A.  I think it's great that the Boers are being welcomed in
black countries.
 
 >
> Since Africa, therefore, belongs to us all, I hope that we will see an end to
> the exploitation of Africa by IT professionals from Europe and the USA.
> These professionals come here for a limited time, charge enormous rates,
> fail to do any kind of skills transfer and then leave.  The Africans are then
> in no position to maintain the product.  Once the product fails, there are
> only two options: pay through the neck to get the USA or European
> experts to do the necessary maintenance or let the product fall into disuse.
> Either way, its big money down the sewer.
 
> >
> (PS. Don't get all hot under the collar. The above message was written
> with tongue firmly in cheek.)
>
Actually, I suspect you really mean these comments, and you do have a
point, though I don't see it as "exploitation".  That word has as many
different meanings as "religious", I guess.
 
I suppose, if you really want to get cynical, you could say that
westerners exploit the "developing" world, and those in the "developing"
world exploit the rich foreigners.
 
What I'm wondering is :  To what extent, in the foreign aid game, do
countries actually ask for aid from the "developed" world, as opposed to
the "have" countries offering their money and expertise, without being
asked?  Or is this a silly question?
 
 
Valerie Bruce
[log in to unmask]