Hacker News Reader

Comment by PakG1 | Hacker News Reader

I don't claim to understand African issues very well, so take my comments with the grain of salt that I'm very ignorant.

The civil wars that happen in certain African nations are troubling. But what was more troubling to me was reading news how factions would take control by poisoning wells that provided water for citizens. It was unthinkable to me that someone could actually do that, especially in certain areas where water was scarce. Long-term effects seemed to be ignored in favour of short-term war gains. Having never experienced such a difficult situation, I can't process what kind of motivation and thinking could cause such horrific action.

If such water supplies are found in areas where there is conflict, I worry that it only would add to the conflict, as they would be found as key tactical points to conquer and hold. It makes me sick that such good news brings such negative thoughts to my mind.

View on HN

I speak as an African (Nigerian).

As humans, we plan into the future. However, our planning timeframes are limited by how far into the future we can imagine. Further, our ability to imagine the future depends on how likely we believe that future to be.

In the West where life is safe and prosperous, planning/imagining 20-30 years out is reasonable. In all likelihood, you will live that long. However, in war-torn African countries, the planning timeframe is much shorter for the people. If one faction can gain an advantage that gives them dominance over another faction for the next 2 years, they'll view that as ok. They do so because they can't actually think further than that. The past has taught them not to. This leads to awful decisions in a 10-yr frame. And so they stay trapped in a shitty situation.

I think the actionable question here is "How can an (x+n) year future be imagined?" where x is the current imagined future whether it be a day, month or year and n is any additional time.

Sadly, this question is philosophical until the basic needs of survival are met.

What is criminal is that the so-called humanitarian "West" either does nothing to assist longer-term thinking (don't want to create self-sufficient competitors!). Instead we strip-mine, exploit and install puppet governments so our all-important corporations and their profit and resource flows are unhindered.

This is a great observation about how critically important the expectation of long-term safety is. Take a rich developed country and reduce that expectation from decades down to years and watch the economy collapse. Those guarantees of safety allow a huge amount of wealth to be created. People can invest huge amounts of capital into projects with very long and beneficial payoffs

This was also an underlying factor when I tried to find why Russian tourists used to spend crazy amounts of money right across the EU border. Few of them told that looking back, it's possible that things might not last, so you mind as well use what you have now. When your planning perspective isn't long, you make different choices.

You raise some important issues, but if anything I actually think that this aquifer is going to reduce the conflict in this area. The civil wars, rape, and poisoning are all symptoms of a deeper illness: poverty. Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else, they're just poorer and therefore more desperate.

Conflict minerals (diamonds, coltan, etc) fuel conflict because they are easy to control. It only takes a relatively few men to control a mine, and any diamonds mined can easily be exported. In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway.

The water won't really be a target for militia, but it will be able to be used to develop the region. More water gives more crops, which gives higher living standards, which gives less war.

(As a side note, another potential benefit is that this aquifer will promote regional integration, since it's on the border between South Sudan and Kenya. South Sudan is in the process of applying for membership in the East African Community, which has the stated goal of eventually transforming into a political federation. I expect that the EAC will be a very strong driver for regional security.)

You can't explain away centuries (millenia in some cases) of tribalism, with hatred and fear and discrimination passed from parents to children for generations as mere poverty. Poverty plays a role to be sure, but the situation is more complex (it always is.)

Sorry, I did not mean to discount the impact of tribalism. It is certainly a significant issue in East Africa (I can't speak for other areas). The history of the USA shows that even affluent western countries suffer from the Us vs Them mindset.

That said, I do believe that poverty is the more significant issue. Increased development generally correlates with stronger government [1], and with better access to government. When this happens, disputes are more likely to be resolved through the legal system.

I'm not an expert on the interaction between tribalism and warfare in developing countries, so don't think I'm trying to claim infallibility. This is just what I believe to be true.

[1] I say correlates, because I can't say that development causes stronger government. It could be the other way around

EDIT: Okay, now it's my turn to ask: what did I say wrong? Would you like to discuss it, rather than just downvoting?.

I didn't downvote. Even relatively rich countries outside of Africa like Mexico, Chile, and Panama have very high violent crime rates, but mostly among the poor (in Panama anyway, in Mexico I suspect there's a lot more drug related violence.) So poverty is definitely a big issue, but tribalism plays a big role too, e.g. bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing. A lot of violence in South Africa is either race related or tribal. So it's not that you're wrong, it's just that the picture is more complex than just poverty alone.

First world countries have an equally long history of the same hatred, fear, discrimination and constant warfare. In general terms, it only lessened when a large proportion of the population could move out of poverty and feel reasonably secure about their future.

You don't have to look far to see how easy it is to revert to barbaric and uncivilized behaviour and standards when that sense of safety and security is put at risk.

> Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else

How do you know?

My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war.

Edit: this is an honest question. If I said anything wrong, please let me know as well.

Africans at the moment are, as a group, the most corrupt people on earth [1]. This is equivalent to saying that Prussians were better than the French at making war.

However, this different from saying that Africans are inherently corrupt, or that every Frenchman is destined to make a terrible soldier. I intended to assert that Africans aren't inherently corrupt, and I think you were downvoted because people thought you were disputing this.

[1] http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_b...

I guess it would matter what you mean by "inherently corrupt". physiologically? very unlikely - but it could definitely be a cultural issue

Yes, you'd have to define inherently corrupt. Since it could be genetic, cultural, situational... etc.

And even then, you can't really jump to the conclusion that we are all the same.

Being corrupt or warlike are, in my opinions, just traits. They could be evolutionary adaptations to various environmental situations, for all anyone knows. Everyone on Earth is different, with different traits... Africans included. I'm not saying that's what Africans are, but I'm also saying you can't make the claim that those aren't inherent traits. It's a total possibility and nothing should be left out for scientific and reasonable analysis.

As a person from a Nigerian family, I'm already offended... but... let me try and answer you.

1) It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Take a look at Youtube's attempt at defining hate-speech in their guidelines:

""Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality. "

(Note that I think Google should remove the "protected group" part and just say "any group of people")

2) How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+, on Reddit, on HN or any other site that always ends up derailing the main topic into oblivion.

> It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans).

Africa is a continent. There are white Africans. If I had said, black people, that would be different, however I did not. I did not because the OP mentioned Africans and I was only pointing out that his statement about a generalization of an entire continent (he implied most Africans cannot be different from most other humans, which is already untrue even if you consider just skin color). However, had the OP stated what he stated and used "black people" instead of "Africans," I would have still asked the same question. Because he still would have made a generalization that he could not possibly know.

> How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+

Exactly. You can't prove that it's not a trait. That's all I'm questioning. Btw, I can't prove I'm not a racist to you, but I can prove that I have not yet made a racist remark. By YouTube's definition, I have not made an insulting remark based on a generalization of a race. Just because I don't agree with the author's assertions, does not necessarily mean I agree with the opposite assertion (that Africans are more corrupt and warlike). I have not made the claim or generalization that Africans, or black people, are more corrupt or warlike. Just because you are insulted, does not mean what I have said is actually insulting.

That being said, I'm sorry if it offended you, but I stand by my point. All I wanted to say was that the OP himself made a generalization. And I tried pointing it out with a question that might have made me look like I was making a racist remark... but I was just pointing out the fallacy in his claim by implying the opposite could be true..

I won't be in this thread after this. I already see the rabbit-hole falling has begun.

Since we can actually measure & look at people in a very non-debatable way, you can get unquestionable & unbias data on how tall people are and the color of their skin. You cannot debate 6-foot tall versus 7-foot tall. We've(first-world at least) all agreed on what is a ruler. 12 inches is 12 inches. You also cannot debate the color red versus green as it has been defined.

The OP's generalization of people being equal is a fair generation to make considering the context of the world we live in today.

You should understand and be sensitive to the fact that racism is a real problem in the world today. As such, statements/questions implying directly, or indirectly, a characteristic of a group of people that support ideas aligning with racism should be done with care and not without quality evidence that suggests the negative characteristic; otherwise it just appears malicious. Especially for a group of people who have already experienced very similar abuse for many years and are still dealing with it today.

Again, I did not imply anything racist. I did not make any generalizations, about a race, a country, or EVEN a continent! Please listen to what I'm saying!

Just because you constantly assert I'm a racist without actually listening to the substance and nuance of anything I have said does not make me a racist.

Please, specifically point out what statement I said was a generalization about a race?

Just because I do not agree with the OP, does not mean I agree with the opposite. Just like how if you're not with the US on Iraq does not mean you are with the terrorists.

My question "how do you know?" is simply a thought experiment showing the fallacy in the OP's assertion that in fact Africans are not more corrupt or warlike than anyone else. It is totally possible they are. He does not know, nor do I. The point is that he doesn't know anymore than I do. I am not, and have never, stated Africans are more corrupt or warlike either! If I did in fact, state this, please point this out otherwise I will be inadvertently spreading racist beliefs (which I do not. I am totally on your side with this. Let's work together okay?).

The OP is the one who made a generalization (Africans are not more corrupt or warlike than other people). All I did was question his generalization. He could have also said "Africans are not any more black than other people." That one is easier to verify that he is wrong, so if I pointed that out by saying "how do you know?" I would have gotten many more up votes.

By ignoring the possibility that Africans might have genetic, cultural, societal, or other factors causing the corruption and "warlike" is doing a disservice to the issue, reason, and scientific method.

I really shouldn't be getting into this, but whatever:

Let's assume that you believe that "all men are born equal" and you know for yourself that you are not a war-mongering, savaging monster and that this are also not typical traits for other people around you. Then, from your believe that "alle men are born equal" it's just far more likely that people in africa would default to a similar, peaceful, state like you and the thing that drives people in african war-torn countries must be outside factors.

(Also, let's be realistic and just admit that it's mostly just racism if you state something negative about a particular group, and not when it's something positive)

First of all, pointing out something that's "negative" is not necessarily racism. "Negative" is also subjective.

For example: Japanese people are short. In the West (and actually most of the world), people would find it a negative statement. If it is negative (that somehow being short is bad), stating this fact is not racism. This is not to mention the fact that it's subjective whether being short is negative or not.

If you look at chad_oliver's post, you'll see that he claims (and provides a source) for the fact that Africans are statistically the most corrupt. This fact is not racism, nor is bringing it up racism, as long as you're just using the facts for what they are: facts.

Secondly, I NEVER made any claims about Africans being more corrupt than other people, or being war mongerers... so every argument about that you've made is moot. If I did make such a statement, please QUOTE me!

Finally, "all men are born equal" is false. The intent of the statement is that all men should be given equal opportunity under the law as if all men are born equal. The statement does not mean that all men are literally created equal. You can easily see this if you're not color blind. Asian people look different from black people, and white people look different as well. And it's not much of a logical leap to conclude that genetic, cultural, and societal differences don't just end at skin color. If you watch Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert often parodies this fallacious political correctness by claiming he is "color blind" and everyone has the same skin color to him. His belief that "all men are born equal" is fallacious, and that's what I was trying to point out by suggesting the opposite might also be true.

If you watch Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert often parodies this fallacious political correctness by claiming he is "color blind" and everyone has the same skin color to him.

You have profoundly misunderstood why Colbert does that bit. He's parodying racists who say they are colorblind in order to ignore white privilege. Racial colorblindness is the modern version of, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend." The bit is commentary on structural racism in society.

If you don't believe that is Colbert's point, consider that Colbert's character is a parody of bombastic conservative talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and O'Rielly. Whenever he does something obviously funny he's parodying conservative stereotypes not well-meaning but superficial liberal hippie types, and racism is a major conservative stereotype.

Here is an examination of how racial colorblindness affects racial minorities: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/colorblind/201112/colorb...

And here is some discussion of the principles via wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race-blind#Criticism_of_color_...

Did you even read the Wikipedia link you said:

"is a sociological term referring to the disregard of racial characteristics when selecting which individuals will participate in some activity or receive some service."

And from the first link you sent: "Colorblindness is the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity."

I have not profoundly misunderstood colbert's parodies. Misunderstanding of concepts like equality under the law ARE conservative stereotypes (conservatives often think liberals think everyone should be perfectly equal). Color blindness by wikipedias definition and my definition ARE conservative stereotypes as well. They often misunderstand what "racial equality" means and turn it into "colorblindness" instead, thinking all we need to do is to see everyone as exactly the same. Colbert parodies this because in his monologues and interviews he specifically refers to the Wikipedia definition: he points out that he can't tell skin color, not social-economic status. The viewer quickly sees the absurdity of the false political correctness because it's obvious his subject has a different skin color.

So I think you need to re-evaluate Colbert's parodies because you grossly misunderstand them, and apparently what "colorblindness" means. A good start would be to read the links you posted for me.

Did you even read the Wikipedia link you said:

The part of the article you are referring to is the original intended usage before it was adopted by racists seeking to cloak their racism in the language of their opponents. This new use that Colbert parodies is one where racists have adopted the form but not the meaning.

At this point your decision to willfully ignore the relevant part of the article in favor of the usage before it had been co-opted by racists suggests intellectual dishonesty rather than pure scientific egalitarianism.

@chrischen: (I cannot reploy to your latest comment)

All I was trying to do is explain how one might come to the conclusion that africans are not intrinsically more corrupt or warlike than other people (instead of the opposite).

I wasn't offended by your statement or wanted it to label as racism or anything. I'm sorry if you've misunderstood that.

Yes I understand how the OP came to his conclusion. In fact, the reason why I made my comment was to point out that his conclusion was based on fallacious logic.

The problem is that you're trying to have a logical or even scientific discussion with people who are more interested in having a political, politically correct, socially non-offensive discussion.

Science and logic often lead to socially unpleasant realities. You can see the same thing when you talk to religious people about the scientific rationalization for an atheistic worldview. Those discussions don't go well either.

Especially in public forums, even better-than-average ones like HN, political correctness will always hold the emotional and populist trump cards.

Out of nowhere, the throwaway account for opinions TOO FAR out of the HN mainstream enters.

The fact that anyone believes it's possible to have a "scientific" or purely "logical" evaluation on a race of people in some kind of sterile/unbias environment without racism being a significant factor is wrong in today's world. Studies such as this[1] are just racism. How often does anyone try to connect white people with some negative trait? How many of those studies are done? But we love finding ways to support racism with "studies" masquerading as "science". Media, society, "studies" without all the context of history & corruption: anything to ensure black people, their culture, their home country continues to be looked down upon.

1. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-men-smal...

Meh, I don't believe in throwaway accounts for expressing non-mainstream opinions. People can downvote me if my thoughts bother them too much.

environment without racism being a significant factor

You demonstrate my point. I approach every sacred cow as though we should skip the emotionalism and let the facts lead where they will. You view the issue as being inextricable from the politics and emotion. You can't even begin to try to approach the subject without politicking and spinning, such as calling the linked article "racism" when it's really just a study that gives us some possibly interesting data points.

Hence, discussion is fairly pointless - as I was pointing out to the previous poster.

> He does not know, nor do I.

Yes, but there are level of beliefs that can be assigned to arbitrary hypothesis. Consider the fact(s) that

1) the scientific consensus agrees that most human being are almost equivalent in skills and intelligence to form decent social structures

2) Africa has a billion plus human being, the scale at which laws of large number dictates that their overall behavior should be close to human mean.

3) there have been advanced cultures in Africa in past, as recent as just before European colonization.

Keeping that in mind, reasonable people would agree that Africans are not inferior merely due to continent they are born upon. Is this the scientific level of proof that matches the 5 sigma precision coming out of LHC? No. But it is reasonable to expect so, and no proper scientific resources are being devoted to this micro-study, after most of Science has already has rejected idea that one large group of humans could be statistically inferior to other large group.

As a side note, you might not have realized it, but similar arguments have been used (and are still being used) by people who want to raise a rhetorical question, like how do you know that evolution explains x,y,z fact? More often than not, these people do not have intention of genuine questioning but rather want to show that ignorance of one detailed thought experiment is enough to discredit entire field of scientific evidence. It is thus not surprising that people would think that you belong to one of that group.

It doesn't matter what's probable or not. I never claimed any specific conclusion about Africans. I only claimed the OP's assertions that it must not be some intrinsic factor to be false. It is literally as simple as that.

Your history teacher thinks in stereotypes (or thinks only history between 1870 and 1945 is relevant). Nothing to be proud of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena%E2%80%93Auersted...

Not stating I'm proud. Only stating the obvious double standard.

> My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war.

He should have hesitated, since historically France is one of the most militarily successful nations.

I've read/heard that too I'm thinking either on QI or r/AskHistorians?

In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway.

My original question was what if these water supplies are found in areas of conflict. In such scenarios, transport is not an issue. And the question remains because although they wouldn't put prices on a liter of water, I'd say it's because the water is invaluable, not because the value is low. If it weren't so, it wouldn't be worth it to poison wells in the first place.

Africa has a very long history of not only various factions fighting, but tribal conflicts that go back centuries. Things were only made worse as colonial powers played different tribes against each other. Add to this organized crime, religious hatred, and generally low regard for life, and we have what we have.

Also, "poisoning the well" is a well documented military tactic in European heritage as well. Similarly devastating to the local populations are scorched earth tactics, for example used in WWII.

Indeed, African militias do not have a monopoly on "poisoning the well" or other scorched-earth tactics. For a fantastic Western example, I would humbly point us all in the direction of our own nation's conduct in the Vietnam War, viz., with Agent Orange.

The explicit aim of the Agent Orange campaigns was to render cropland useless, starving rural Vietnamese out of the countryside and driving them into (US-dominated) cities. Entire ecosystems were devastated as a result, and generations of Vietnamese suffered the aftermath.

This was basically the 20th Century equivalent of the old Roman tactic of sewing salt into the enemy's wheat fields.

Let's stop thinking about Africa as a single entity, for a start. Even within one country, (Kenya), we can see immense variability in culture, economic and political function etc... For example, Nairobi feels (culturally) closer to NYC than it does to Mombasa. Whilst there is undeniably an immense quantity of grinding, debilitating poverty; there is also great wealth, and a good number of very smart people who are not only doing very well, but also helping to build a good future for the country.

One should not overlook the crazy bureaucracy and inefficiency of course, but equally, one should not have a uniformly negative view ... we still need to operate, and to get things done.

Kenya itself has been relatively stable and relatively peaceful for several decades.

(there was some instability after an election in 2007, and there are simmering issues around the periphery - LRA in Uganda, fiefs in Somalia, continual intervention by Ethiopia in Somalia, North/South Sudan skirmishes).

Actually it's the Kenyan military that has managed to dislodge Al Shabaab from significant swarths of Southern Somalia (up to their Mogadishu, and including the largest port, Kismayu). Ethiopia generally used to roll in, depose the warlord they didn't like, then head on back home. The Kenyan military tried to stabilize the region.

It's not all altruism though, the intention was to create a buffer near the Kenyan border as the country intends to build a large port in Lamu, a coastal town nearer Somalia than Mombasa, the current main port.

*Edit: Minor tense correction.

It's just basic scorched earth tactics, which have been practiced for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

It's actually not short-term -- what better way to prevent your enemies from populating an area than to permanently render it unsuitable for habitation?

But what is the purpose of that action? Traditionally warfare [it seems to me] has primarily been about geo located resources. That is you want the land or the resources on the land that your neighbour is on. If you destroy the land/resources then you might as well have let the neighbour stay there so long as you ensured they didn't impinge on your resources.

However, if your end goal is the genocide of a particular out-group, then it makes perfect sense.

>If such water supplies are found in areas where there is conflict, I worry that it only would add to the conflict

I think you are completely right. Incoming anecdotal & speculation: My parents, born in Lagos Nigeria, basically saw this happen. They never planned to be in USA this long; I wasn't suppose to be born here. Basically, Shell(A gas station in USA) is strongly suspected of providing, at least in part, funding for a significant military/political action somewhere around 1970 - 1977. My parents, and several other Nigerians, who traveled to USA to get a degree then return to Nigeria no longer felt comfortable to return and came to the realization that they may have to live in USA for a very long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources_of_Africa

Quote from Wiki:

"Despite these abundance of natural resources, claims suggest that many Western nations like the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom as well as emerging economic powerhouses like China often exploit Africa's natural resources today, causing most of the value and money from the natural resources to go to the West rather than Africa, further causing the poverty in Africa."

The key question is if water can be used to start this kind of conflicts. I guess it could if the water means successful agriculture.

Minor correction: Shell is a European oil company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell

This isn't a new thing. Land mines have been used to deny farmland to the enemy, which has effects that last for decades if not centuries. War has always been hell.

> It was unthinkable to me that someone could actually do that, especially in certain areas where water was scarce.

What would be the point of poisoning a well that nobody needed?

Point taken, but I think you know what I meant. :P

Reply on news.ycombinator.com