# Will Canada respond to the Ivory Coast?



## gnplummer421 (18 Jan 2006)

The U.N. is under "siege" in the Ivory Coast. Is this something Canada will respond to militarily, and if so, what "Task Force" would be able to respond. Are we stretched too thin or can we handle another mission right now? I'm interested in what the military minds on this forum think about this issue. 

Gnplummer421


----------



## enfield (18 Jan 2006)

Looks like another successful UN mission. This is France's sphere, isn't it? The Foreign Legion is free this weekend I believe... 

UN troops under siege in Ivory Coast
Last Updated Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:24:27 EST 
CBC News
United Nations peacekeepers in Ivory Coast's largest city are under siege by government supporters who have tried to force their way into the UN headquarters in Abidjan. 


INDEPTH: Ivory Coast

  
Supporters of Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo run through the streets of Abidjan, the country's largest city, on Wednesday, Jan. 18. (AP photo)  
More than 2,000 protesters tried to force their way into the UN building and had to be held back by warning shots and tear gas. 

"A number of attackers were killed and others wounded. UN forces are exercising maximum restraint in dealing with these attacks. Non-lethal methods are being used to disperse crowds and deter attacks," UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York. 

More than 300 troops have also been forced to withdraw from two UN bases in the west of the country after clashes over the past three days that have left at least four protesters dead. 

The UN says the unrest is being incited by "hate media" broadcasting messages aimed at stirring trouble in the West African nation. 

The hate messages are "unacceptable and must cease immediately," Dujarric said. 

The UN Security Council is expressing "great concern" at the unrest and is expected to meet on Thursday to consider sanctions against the country. 

Ivory Coast, the world's largest cocoa producer, has been sharply divided since a failed coup attempt in 2002.


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Jan 2006)

So where's the outcry about UN Imperialist Stormtroopers firing on unarmed civilians?


----------



## GO!!! (18 Jan 2006)

Oh pretty please can we jump into that mess!

The UN has failed miserably (again) another horrible, violent, poor, drug and disease riddled West African state is in shambles (again).

Canada would be wise to adopt a "hands off" approach to Africa completely. 

There is too much to be lost, and too little to be gained. We should concentrate our efforts in areas where our allies need us, and there is at least a chance of success, be it ever so slim.


----------



## ImanIdiot (18 Jan 2006)

I say delay with diplomacy, and then send TF 2-07


----------



## career_radio-checker (19 Jan 2006)

I'm not racist but some parts of Africa are just kerfuckled beyond repair. Sure white Europeans messed them up royaly during the 18th century but they can't seem to stop blaming whites for their modern day troubles (ie aids, natural resources, corruption, famine, etc...). I say if they hate the colour of our skin then fine!!! Let African nation peacekeepers wear the blue berret in these so called 'failed states'. At least then they won't cry "Imperialism!"

I have little time for racism or ignorant students who think they know how to solve the worlds problems just because they red Chapter 8 in their political science book. There's my rant for tonight.


----------



## childs56 (19 Jan 2006)

We dont have the equipment, man power nor the abilty to deploy, sustain, and support ourselves on the ground yet try to help out others. What fast air would we have, helo support, tank, arty, airlift heavy? Keep out and let the heavy's take care of this mess.


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Jan 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> I'm not racist but some parts of Africa are just kerfuckled beyond repair. Sure white Europeans messed them up royaly during the 18th century but they can't seem to stop blaming whites for their modern day troubles (ie aids, natural resources, corruption, famine, etc...). I say if they hate the colour of our skin then fine!!! Let African nation peacekeepers wear the blue berret in these so called 'failed states'. At least then they won't cry "Imperialism!"
> 
> I have little time for racism or ignorant students who think they know how to solve the worlds problems just because they red Chapter 8 in their political science book. There's my rant for tonight.



To beleive that whites messed them up you have to first beleive that there was some semblance of order before we got there.  Which is inaccurate to say the least.


----------



## clasper (19 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So where's the outcry about UN Imperialist Stormtroopers firing on unarmed civilians?



No Blood for Chocolate!
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23050.0.html


----------



## Zartan (19 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> To beleive that whites messed them up you have to first beleive that there was some semblance of order before we got there.  Which is inaccurate to say the least.



Could you elaborate?


----------



## gnplummer421 (19 Jan 2006)

I get the impression that it would not be a place for us to get involved. As far as A-stan is concerned, I get the feeling it is going to get nasty over there. I suppose it is best to fully support that effort instead of getting involved with Ivory Coast. Will our neighbors to the South help us with heavy lift over in Khandahar? And how are our LAV's performing with the harsh conditions there. 

Cheers,
Gnplummer421 :cheers:


----------



## Daidalous (19 Jan 2006)

The problem lies with the fact that the attacker, rebels or what ever they are know that the UN will keep a short and tight leash on it's loaned troops in the country.  They wouldn't be doing this if they knew the Un troops acted as they should be TROOPS.


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Jan 2006)

Zartan said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate?



Sure.  They were a bunch of uncivilized warring tribes to begin with, the white man came, enslaved them, and brought some order to a few parts of the continent, then whitey got chased away, and now they're mostly back to being a bunch of uncivilized warring tribes.

I know I'm over-simplifying a bit, but the basic point is "we" didn't cause their problems.  Granted our ancestors abused them and took advantage of them, but their current problems have little to do with slavery and imperialism by old europe.


----------



## Sheerin (19 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Sure.  They were a bunch of uncivilized warring tribes to begin with, the white man came, enslaved them, and brought some order to a few parts of the continent, then whitey got chased away, and now they're mostly back to being a bunch of uncivilized warring tribes.
> 
> I know I'm over-simplifying a bit, but the basic point is "we" didn't cause their problems.  Granted our ancestors abused them and took advantage of them, but their current problems have little to do with slavery and imperialism by old Europe.



Thats incredibly ethnocentric, and almost offensive.
Who are you to decide who is civilized and who is not? While at the same time what is civilized?  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.  

I'm not suggesting that Africa was some sort of Utopia before the Europeans arrived but it wasn't just a bunch of "uncivilized warring tribes".


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Jan 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Thats incredibly ethnocentric, and almost offensive.
> Who are you to decide who is civilized and who is not? While at the same time what is civilized?  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that Africa was some sort of Utopia before the Europeans arrived but it wasn't just a bunch of "uncivilized warring tribes".



So what were they exactly?  Happy peaceful indigenous fairies living in balance with the Earth Goddess Gaia?  Give me a break.  Habitual cannibalism, genital mutilation, living in mud huts, running around naked all day hunting animals and eachother with clubs and spears....those are pretty clear indicators that they were less than civilized.  To me anyway.  You're entitled to disagree.  Perhaps you'd prefer it if I called them "educationaly and economicaly disadvantaged individuals".  I call a spade a spade, if that's not PC enough for you, tell it to someone who cares.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Jan 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Thats incredibly ethnocentric, and almost offensive.
> Who are you to decide who is civilized and who is not? While at the same time what is civilized?  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that Africa was some sort of Utopia before the Europeans arrived but it wasn't just a bunch of "uncivilized warring tribes".



If it is "almost" offensive, why are you offended?

I don't think you can find an area of the world that is as ethnically homogenous as west Africa, so I fail to see how "ethnocentric" is an inaccurate method of categorisation.

IF it was not a bunch of uncivilised warring tribes - what was it? Break out the PC dictionary now, and lets hear about the plight of the third world, I mean undeveloped nations , I mean developing nations  :

This thread is about us sending troops there, not your personal objections to the valid observations raised by other posters. I would hate to see plain and accurate speech fall prey to the PC Nazis on army.ca, much as it has in the rest of the western world.


----------



## Jay4th (19 Jan 2006)

While 48th's wording may be "unrefined", his points are valid.  Colonial powers kept tribalism at bay and the world denounced them and cried for independance.  If anyone can name more than a couple post colonial successes I will be pleasantly surprised.  I can think only of Ghana.  I am NOT saying colonialism was perfect but safety for most and education for some is a heck of a lot better than what most of the continent has now. I am hard pressed to think of anything there worth one Canadian life.  Forgive the harsh tone


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (19 Jan 2006)

Just let the Frenches take care of it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2006)

Quote from Go!!,
I would hate to see plain and accurate speech fall prey to the PC Nazis on army.ca, much as it has in the rest of the western world

2 things,....WTF does this mean?, if your saying we are too "PC" for your taste, doors that way...

Second of all, shove the "Nazi" comparisons.....millions offered, and did, sacrifice thier lives and you insult them when you casually toss that word around when something distastes you.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Go!!,
> I would hate to see plain and accurate speech fall prey to the PC Nazis on army.ca, much as it has in the rest of the western world
> 
> 2 things,....WTF does this mean?, if your saying we are too "PC" for your taste, doors that way...



This means that when someone (like sheerin) starts complaining that the words used to tell the truth were not sensitive enough, they deserve a slapping.



> Second of all, shove the "Nazi" comparisons.....millions offered, and did, sacrifice thier lives and you insult them when you casually toss that word around when something distastes you.



Parking Nazi, Soup Nazi, PT Nazi, WATC Nazi...... these are colloquialisms, not insults. Words can sometimes take different meanings over time, and the original meaning can be obscured or forgotten. 

The Flintstones advocates having a "gay old time" in their opening song - how many children's cartoons would say that today? Same word, different meaning. 

In this case, I am using the term "Nazi" to demonstrate mindless adherence to, or a violent and unreasoning opposition to, a philosophy or set of rules; in this case, what is commonly referred to as "political correctness"

Can we end this hijack now?


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So what were they exactly?  Happy peaceful indigenous fairies living in balance with the Earth Goddess Gaia?  Give me a break.  Habitual cannibalism, genital mutilation, living in mud huts, running around naked all day hunting animals and eachother with clubs and spears....those are pretty clear indicators that they were less than civilized.  To me anyway.  You're entitled to disagree.  Perhaps you'd prefer it if I called them "educationally and economically disadvantaged individuals".  I call a spade a spade, if that's not PC enough for you, tell it to someone who cares.



Let me translate for you, I take it you were meaning to say subsistence farming, hunter gatherers and nomadic herders practicing their time honoured cultural traditions. Attired in clothing both suitable for the environment in which they live and also getting the maximum use out of their resources. As to spears and clubs there are a few hundred civilized wearers of Red Scarlet whose earthly remains are now fertilizing the Savannah's because of a misplaced conception of superiority. In looking at the root causes of the strife today, who laid out the map lines carving pre exsisting well established tribal boundaries into a mish mash of culture. Oh and as to the climatically and again functional domiciles which again is a perfect example of resource maximization, why fix what isn't broken.

CBC News today UN 4 armed Rebels 0


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Let me translate for you, I take it you were meaning to say subsistence farming, hunter gatherers and nomadic herders practicing their time honoured cultural traditions. Attired in clothing both suitable for the environment in which they live and also getting the maximum use out of their resources.



Thanks, I KNEW someone would find a PC way to repeat what I'd said 



			
				3rd Herd said:
			
		

> As to spears and clubs there are a few hundred civilized wearers of Red Scarlet whose earthly remains are now fertilizing the Savannah's because of a misplaced conception of superiority.



Not because of a "misplaced conception of superiority", but because of an exaggerated opinion of their superiority.  Thanks to those same few hundred, there's a few thousand wearers of loincloths fertilizing the same patches of Savannah, so there's no doubt that they were superior.  And if that's not proof enough, there's the fact that they managed to explot or enslave damn near the entire continent.



			
				3rd Herd said:
			
		

> In looking at the root causes of the strife today, who laid out the map lines carving pre exsisting well established tribal boundaries into a mish mash of culture.



Yeah, you're right, "well established tribal boundaries" always gaurantee peace  :



			
				3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Oh and as to the climatically and again functional domiciles which again is a perfect example of resource maximization, why fix what isn't broken.



You gotta be kidding.

Alright man, let me know when I can swing by to pick up the deed to your house and the papers for your car.  In return you'll get a brand spanking new igloo and a dogsled.


----------



## Sheerin (20 Jan 2006)

> This means that when someone (like sheerin) starts complaining that the words used to tell the truth were not sensitive enough, they deserve a slapping.




It offended me as an anthropologist _in training_. Its not a PC thing, rather its the perpetuation of a stereotype that has absolutely no basis in reality and as such offended the academic and anthropologist in me.  



> Yeah, you're right, "well established tribal boundaries" always guarantee peace



You act as if war doesn't exist in the 'modern' world.  And the fact that they had skirmishes doesn't make them any better or worse than us.  



> You gotta be kidding.
> 
> Alright man, let me know when I can swing by to pick up the deed to your house and the papers for your car.  In return you'll get a brand spanking new igloo and a dogsled.



Well, again you're falling back on stereotypes that have no real basis in reality  The structures that were used in Africa (and still are to a degree) are the result of many thousands of years of tweaking.  Little things like placing the settlement in an area that had a nice, constant breeze, the position of the windows/doors so as to best maximize the sun, while at the same time not overheating the hut/house/whatever.  True its not central air but it worked for them and for us.  


And please, I suggest you stop equating technology with civilization advancement, those ideas have long since been discredited.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Jan 2006)

:rofl:

Alright, I apologize for leading the thread off-topic, but I thought one of the PC monkeys might have an intelligent point to make.  As it is, this discussion is now over, let's get back to the current situation re. the Ivory Coast.


----------



## McG (20 Jan 2006)

I would like to think we (the members of this site) are above arguing the supremacy of one culture/society over another.  Lets stop it now.


----------



## M Feetham (20 Jan 2006)

To the comment about the civility of the people of the Ivory Coast. We can't judge the level of civility in one part of the world based on our own upbringing. The system of beliefs are so completely different that there is no way to compare the two. Yes to us they seem uncvilized but to them that is just the way life is. I'm sure that there is a fairly complex system of rules for behaviour when you look at the individual tribes. However I don't believe we should get involved, we simply do not have the equipment and the manpower. Thanks for listening.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Jan 2006)

Feetham,

If this were the case, and all cultures are equal, we should never intervene in messy tribal conflicts and try to impose our imperialistic ways.

By your logic, Rwanda should be celebrated as an example of "successful resolution of tribal differences, by time honored methods".



> I'm sure that there is a fairly complex system of rules for behaviour when you look at the individual tribes. However I don't believe we should get involved, we simply do not have the equipment and the manpower.



I'm sure there is too. It is based in the superiority of the male, the absolute subjugation of women, violence, mutilation and murder as a part of daily life. I believe that I can find these "values" repugnant without violating some taboo regarding criticising other cultural groups.

I do agree with the last statement you make though - for the reasons you give, and because there is simply no benefit to Canada to do so.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Jan 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> To the comment about the civility of the people of the Ivory Coast. We can't judge the level of civility in one part of the world based on our own upbringing. The system of beliefs are so completely different that there is no way to compare the two. Yes to us they seem uncvilized but to them that is just the way life is. *I'm sure that there is a fairly complex system of rules for behaviour when you look at the individual tribes.* However I don't believe we should get involved, we simply do not have the equipment and the manpower. Thanks for listening.



By everything you've said, one could easily make the argument that we "can't judge the level of civility" of a tribe of apes.  Certainly apes and our other close genetic relatives have a "complex system of rules for behaviour".  Hell, so does a pack of wolves.And we certainly weren't raised under their system.  Therefore we don't have the right to say wether or ot they're civilized. Right?

&#(@& "Intelectuals"....


----------



## enfield (21 Jan 2006)

I can't believe this even an issue. 
I would much rather live in Africa in 1880 - or even 1900 - than ANY "civilized" European country. Our wonderful civilization invented horrors that their contemporaries Shaka and his Zulus couldn't imagine, so I find the idea that somehow Europe was superior to be ill-informed. Read anything by Dickens, and then tell me of the greatness of Europe. 
Africa today (or in 1900, 1800, 1100) doesn't seem so different to me than the Scotland my ancestors left, or the Europe many people fled. Or the US in the 1860s. Or the attitude towards native peoples in North America and Australia in settlement periods. 

I'm not a fan of anthropology, political correctness, or moral relativity. But to imply that the West is inherently morally and culturally superior - and to assume that because of this the Africans (nor North Americans) got what they deserved in shocking. Belgium had a right to pillage and destroy the Congo as a King's playground of horror? Portugal was justified in raping the resources of Angola and Mozambique for three centuries?   

Yes, Africa was technologically primitive. Does this make their causes, issues, and conflicts less relevant? Somehow the incestuous murderous bumblings of various medieval kings and lords are worthy noble causes to be celebrated in history, but African conflicts are not? 

Rwanda - and Bosnia - was the resolution of issues by time-honored method: killing. Its the same way the English resolved the issues of the Scottish, the French dealt with their peasants in 1780, the way the Americans dealt with their natives, and the same way France and Germany dealt with each other for 200 years. And the same way we resolved the issues of expansionist Germany. 

Should Canada intervene in Africa?
Probably. Whatever the grand humanitarian causes, the resources there are immense. And the fact is we already do intervene, run, manage, and influence the continent to a huge degree through mineral companies, direct investment in mining and resource extraction, and multi-national corporations. Not to say those organizations are "evil", but to pretend that Canada (or any G8 nation) doesn't already pull a lot of strings in Africa clouds the issue. Talisman Energy in Sudan comes to mind as a famous example, but there are certainly many other examples - I sat around a table at Christmas with in an investment banker and two mineral executives, and they all described and compared the PMCs they used when operating in Africa (mainly the Congo) in the 1990s. 

Should Canada intervene in Ivory Coast?
Not right now. Maybe once the direct threat of Islamic Extremism is dealt with. However, I think that Canada would see a greater return for investment in sub-Saharan African missions than elsewhere. A battalion in the Ivory Coast could accomplish a lot more than a battalion Afghanistan, simply by the nature of the society and the conflict.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Jan 2006)

A strong NO.

While I agree with the above statement that a Bn of Cdn soldiers in the region would do more good then in Afghanistan, the current situation will not be solved by western soldiers.

The sub-Sahara contanent will be in a state of constant disarray until after the AIDS epidemic that is slowly choking the region ends. Once AIDS is conquered by vaccine or acquired immunity, no amount of money or effort will re stabilise the region.

Occasionally, the unruly children must go off, make mistakes and sort out problems on their own. It may take a while, but they will eventually grow up.


----------



## Cannonfodder (22 Jan 2006)

Great post Enfield my sentiments exactly .


----------



## GO!!! (22 Jan 2006)

Endfield,

Although you bring up some good points, I disagree with you, for the following reasons;

Although the aptly referred to "incestuous bumblings" of the various european monarchs is well documented, I think in this case, the ends justified the means. All of the european nations had ended up with a largely democratic and representative government by the mid 1900s, and while this was hardly a fine - tuned indicator of civility, is far preferable to the murderous tribal systems that persist to this day in Africa.

If the only reason for us to "intervene" in IC is because the locals are starving and murdering each other, I think we should definitely stay out. As the Balkans has demonstrated, as well as your examples, *peace requires victory*. Endless negotiations and cleverly worded treaties are fine and dandy, but when you are still without land/water/power, it is only a matter of time before the conflict ignites again. 

While I am sure this suggestion will draw a few salvos here, if we wanted the fastest and most effective route to peace, we would be arming the largest tribe, and allowing them to eliminate the competition. Much like in the wild, everyone is better served with a smaller population living within it's means and resources, than two larger ones warring over them.

The only areas that are peaceful today are the ones in which the more powerful group completely eliminated the weaker one. Where the weaker group was allowed to persist, the problems associated with the original conflict persisted ie. Quebec being permitted to negotiate it's survival, when a more prudent route would have been for the brits to completely subjugate and assimilate when they had the chance.


----------



## geo (22 Jan 2006)

The Ivory Coast is an interesting place.
Old french colony. divided into two groups - locals whom France governed and left in charge AND the worker bees that have come from surrounding countries - looking to share in the country's alleged prosperity.

France negociated a truce, set up a UN force separating both parties.... then the local Gov't did the unforgivable - they did a preemptive airstrike on their opponents and killed some french soldiers... France, did it's typical kneejerk reaction and conducted it's own airstrike and eliminated the country's airforce....

Have serious doubts that the Gov't of the Ivory Coast will be interested in receiving the aid of any occidental force to resolve their problems. Look for them to escalate their fight against the guest workers IMHO


----------



## enfield (22 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Although the aptly referred to "incestuous bumblings" of the various european monarchs is well documented, I think in this case, the ends justified the means.


1500 years of monarchic anarchy wasn't a planned progression, it was more a series of events that in the end turned out the European Union. In between it produced numerous genocides, the Napoleonic Wars, the Inquisition, the 30 Years War, centuries of French-British hostility, a century of German-Franco wars, and so many countries who's names we've forgotten it's almost silly. The West happened to dress it up in knights, nobles, pretty uniforms or shiny armour - but that doesn't make it better (or worse) than what Africa did or is doing. Or what happened in Asia, the Americas, or anywhere else. Tutsis vs Hutus isn't reallty that different than the Scottish Highlands in 1400 or the War of the Roses or a hundred wars we've forgotten. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> All of the european nations had ended up with a largely democratic and representative government by the mid 1900s, and while this was hardly a fine - tuned indicator of civility, is far preferable to the murderous tribal systems that persist to this day in Africa.


By the mid 1900s all European nations had democratic governments? By 1950ish, they had two massive armies of occupation - US and Soviet - keeping them in line and dictating to them. Half of Europe was under Russian dictatorship. The "free" half of Europe was embroiled in a dozen bloody and pointless colonial wars, trying to hold on to empires they couldn't afford. 
But yes, Europe by 1950 - after killing tens of millions in two world wars - was finally a better place to be than Africa. Unless you were Russian. 
Of course, even today Europe has more foreign troops in it than Africa... 

I just don't think we have that any moral high ground to look down on Africans (or Natives, Australian Aboriginals, etc.). At the same time, neither do they - in the long run every human society is equally violent, aggressive, peaceful, loving, or whatever. Even today in the West, we aren't that far removed from the murderous tribalism (or the corruption and crime) of Africa.

I don't think Canada should intervene in IC. Primarily because there is still a real threat to be countered, and we are meeting it in Afghanistan. I have faith France will enforce its quasi-colonial sphere and protect their interests in that area.
I do believe that a Canadian (or Aussie, US, UK, French, etc.) battalion could make a world of difference (in the short term) in a place as messed up as many sub-Saharan countries, and there is plenty of military evidence to support this. But I can't see that ever becoming politically feasible. Without direct national interest there is no real cause or justification to intervene, and I second GO!!!'s ideas about peace through victory. 
In the end, war does solve problems. I don't think supporting the strong against the weak would work as a foreign policy today, but the concept is valid. Whenever the west speaks of intervening somewhere, I wonder how we would have felt if Martians had intervened to halt WW2 in 1942 and forced a peace conference.


----------



## gnplummer421 (22 Jan 2006)

On the topic of Africa;

I remember a Recce Sqn guy buddy (Hussars/Dragoons) of mine who was in Somalia, and if I.C. is any thing like that, we would definitely not want to go. He spoke to me of an incident where our guys wanted to search the back of a truck. They instructed the Somali man to start unloading said truck, after which he quickly summoned the women in the cab of the truck and told them to unload it. My bud was not keen on that so he basically forced buddy to do it while the women watched. Tres embarassing for his culture for sure. But he also noticed that a lot of the Somali  people are not afraid of guns but if you are holding a big stick in your hands they start taking off. He finished by telling me that he did not think it was our fight and that he did not believe we should have been there. We lost a good Regiment because of that situation and it was not right. A lot of you may not approve or agree with some or all of this reply, but hey this is Canada, where we can express our opinions freely, and not fear repercussion...yup I love this great land


----------



## geo (22 Jan 2006)

Plummer,
You are correct to say that we (as occidentals) do not see or understand the culture rules these people are going by. We may think that the full body burkhas of the taliban women are out of line.... but it's not up to us to decide. We may think that stoning a loose woman in out of line... but it's not up to us to decide.... and that's the rub. Can we stand by and let said woman get stoned by her peers for an infraction to THEIR laws?

Interesting problem / dilema IMHO


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Plummer,
> You are correct to say that we (as occidentals) do not see or understand the culture rules these people are going by. We may think that the full body burkhas of the taliban women are out of line.... but it's not up to us to decide. We may think that stoning a loose woman in out of line... but it's not up to us to decide.... and that's the rub. Can we stand by and let said woman get stoned by her peers for an infraction to THEIR laws?
> 
> Interesting problem / dilema IMHO



That's a load of poop.  Not up to us to decide?  Then what gives "us" the right to employ laws within our borders?  No matter what, we are judging the behaviour of individuals.

We have EVERY right to judge other countries or "cultures", especially when those cultures force compliance without representation.  We have every right to denounce and oppose ANY government or society which forces people to comply to a standard of behaviour without accepting their imput as to what that standard should be.  That's called a dictatorship, and regaurdless of what you or the anti-American left may think, it is not "their culture".  Given the chance, no individual would freely give up his or her right to choose, and instead be ruled by a tyrant.  All this nonsense about how we have to respect "their way of life" is a load of bullshit because they have no CHOICE in how their society is structured; how can any rational individual defend a way of life that is FORCED on the majority of a population?


----------



## GO!!! (22 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> .  All this nonsense about how we have to respect "their way of life" is a load of bullshit because they have no CHOICE in how their society is structured; *how can any rational individual defend a way of life that is FORCED on the majority of a population*?



Like official bilingualism?

Maybe if the west violently opposed the Feds for awhile, a more agreeable arrangement could be negotiated?


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That's a load of poop.  Not up to us to decide?  Then what gives "us" the right to employ laws within our borders?  No matter what, we are judging the behaviour of individuals.
> 
> We have EVERY right to judge other countries or "cultures", especially when those cultures force compliance without representation.  We have every right to denounce and oppose ANY government or society which forces people to comply to a standard of behaviour without accepting their imput as to what that standard should be.  That's called a dictatorship, and regaurdless of what you or the anti-American left may think, it is not "their culture".  Given the chance, no individual would freely give up his or her right to choose, and instead be ruled by a tyrant.  All this nonsense about how we have to respect "their way of life" is a load of bullshit because they have no CHOICE in how their society is structured; how can any rational individual defend a way of life that is FORCED on the majority of a population?



So we should be going out and invading any country that does things in a way we don't agree with? 
Obviously you'll certainly get my vote (not!)


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> So we should be going out and invading any country that does things in a way we don't agree with?
> Obviously you'll certainly get my vote (not!)



No, because there'd no benefit to us in invading many nations. We couldn't afford to do it unless we could recover most of our money from those nations after we've succesfully invaded them.

Plus we're too damn small to invade any country other than maybe micronesia.

And when did I say anything about invading anyway?  Why do you find it neccesary to put words in my mouth?

EDIT:  since your followup post merely repeats your invalid assumptions (ie. you're still putting words in my mouth), I'm going to assume that you are unwilling or unable to debate this in a logical manner.  In the future, feel free to refrain from posting if you're merely looking to misrepresent or insult someone.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Like official bilingualism?
> 
> Maybe if the west violently opposed the Feds for awhile, a more agreeable arrangement could be negotiated?





As much as I hate French, TECHINCALY we could change that.  If enough of us felt strongly enough about it, we would get it changed.  And any one of us free to run for government on the platform that we'lleliminate bilingualism.


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2006)

48th...
glad you're a supporter of what some would categorize as being Republican (Dubya) style diplomacy

(and if the US ever dissagrees with Cdn policy, I guess that means that it's OK to force it upon us too)


----------



## M Feetham (30 Jan 2006)

Hey Go!!!
You make a good point, I should have said that before the Dutch colonized the country and made one minority group more powerful than a majority group they brought broad levels of dissent and hatred into the picture. After they left and the balance of power shifted Voila!! Genocide. More specifically in pre colonial times, the different tribes fought for hunting lands, food, territory, and mates. Much the same as any one else in the world, however they generally did not practice the mass slaughter of every living member of a group. That is more a European/North American tactic. By no means do I beleive that Rwanda was a success. I am sorry if that is the impression I gave. If you have points for me, I am always happy to learn. Thanks.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> ....... Much the same as any one else in the world, however they generally did not practice the mass slaughter of every living member of a group. That is more a European/North American tactic.



What an odd statement to make.  What do you have to back up this statement?  This isn't another "Blame the White Man" theory is it?  If it is, did they learn this from the White Man, in this case the Dutch, or from somewhere else? Seems to me, recalling the films Zulu, Zulu Dawn, and other text, etc., depicting the history of Africa during the British Empires incursions, that African tribes were quite adept at massacring their foes.

Oh! Well, I suppose it could be I haven't kept up to date with "Revisionist History".


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Jan 2006)

Feethams post reminded me of a speech by Michael Crichton entitled "Enivronmentalism as Religion".  Most of the speech isn't relevant to the current topic, but this one excert fits in nicely:



			
				http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html said:
			
		

> How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.
> 
> There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.
> 
> ...


----------



## M Feetham (31 Jan 2006)

My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule. They would take slaves and wives and pratice ritual cannabalism, but not wipe out entire tribes just for revenge. If I am wrong correct me. I am not afraid to learn something if I am in error.
Thanks.


----------



## 48Highlander (31 Jan 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule. They would take slaves and wives and pratice ritual cannabalism, but not wipe out entire tribes just for revenge. If I am wrong correct me. I am not afraid to learn something if I am in error.
> Thanks.



Are you serious?  Have you been paying attention over the last few years?  Rwanda?  Ethiopia?  Darfur (Sudan)?  Do you think that the sort of mass-slaughter that occurs in Africa these days is something new?  Let me guess:  the White Man taught them to commit genocide, right?


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jan 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule.


I might point out that no one else practiced genocide as a rule, either.

Your argument that the Europeans, Americans, and Asians introduced it to them really doesn't hold.  You have no documentation to support or deny that hypothesis.


----------



## GO!!! (31 Jan 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule. They would take slaves and wives and pratice ritual cannabalism, but not wipe out entire tribes just for revenge. If I am wrong correct me. I am not afraid to learn something if I am in error.
> Thanks.



What do you think the effect on a population is when all of the young men are killed, mutilated and/or enslaved, the women are raped/killed/taken as wives, some of the people are eaten, and the elderly are left to starve?

I'll give you a hint - it means that that group will soon cease to exist, having lost the ability to reproduce, feed or protect itself. THIS IS GENOCIDE, whether or not the people involved knew the word!

Slaves were only taken because they could be sold or put to work - this was not civility at work, it was pure economics.


----------



## M Feetham (1 Feb 2006)

Point taken from most of you, however for George Wallace, could you tell me then what happened to the indigenous natives in NFLD, not those that live there today the original tribe. Everyone else thanks for the information. What a hostile bunch of wannabes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Feb 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> Point taken from most of you, however for George Wallace, could you tell me then what happened to the indigenous natives in NFLD, not those that live there today the original tribe. Everyone else thanks for the information. *What a hostile bunch of wannabes.*



Welcome to the warning system. Please reread the site guidelines.


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Feb 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What an odd statement to make.  What do you have to back up this statement?  This isn't another "Blame the White Man" theory is it?  If it is, did they learn this from the White Man, in this case the Dutch, or from somewhere else? Seems to me, recalling the films Zulu, Zulu Dawn, and other text, etc., depicting the history of Africa during the British Empires incursions, that African tribes were quite adept at massacring their foes.
> 
> Oh! Well, I suppose it could be I haven't kept up to date with "Revisionist History".



Not revisionist but:

By the end of the 18th century, only 150 years after the arrival of the Dutch at the Cape of Good Hope, thousands of Bushmen (San) had been shot and killed, and many more were forced to work for their colonial captors. The new British government vowed to stop the fighting. They hoped to “civilize” the Bushmen by encouraging them to adopt a more agricultural lifestyle but were unsuccessful. By the 1870s the last Bushmen of the Cape were hunted to extinction. Other Bushman groups were able to survive the European encroachment despite continued threats. The last license to hunt Bushmen was reportedly issued in Namibia by the South African government in 1936. (National Geographic) Additionally black colonists were just as guilty in the bushman hunt due primarily to a clash of cultures. The black colonists were herders, while the nomadic bushman did not have a concept of personal property. A cow is a food source to be used by who ever hunts it brought the bushman in to direct conflict with the herders who regard the cow as personal property. A very similar analogy to the settlement of the American west. In both the hunting of indigenous for sport and bounty and the clash of cultural values.

As for the slavery argument:
"The dominant pattern of enslavement was well described by Olaudah Equiano, who in his 18th-century autobiography described his capture as a young boy in southern Nigeria, and his subsequent sale and resale to a succession of African masters, before finally being sold to Europeans."

Another perspective:

When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it’s precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa.

Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: "Africa wins again." This is usually said after an incident such as: 

a) a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason 
b) a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn’t all-powerful, you see) 
c) an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks 
d) a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn’t extend to the other tribe 
e) the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe 
f) etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

Source: Kim du Toit on syntynyt ja elänyt Afrikassa. Hän emigroitui Johannesburgista Yhdysvaltoihin vuonna 1986. Essee on julkaistu alunperin

The BeothuK​The extinction of the Beothuk one could easily describe as being proverbially caught in the middle. With the settlement of the coastal areas by initially Portuguese fisherman the Boethuk were forced to move inland away from their traditional food sources.The Portuguese took to hunting the Beothuk as early as 1501 as documented in the travels of Gaspar Corte-Real. With the continued influx of European fishing fleets in the late middle to late 16th century again the genre of clash of cultures rears up with a quote from early English fisherman that the " Beothuk stole anything the Europeans didn't have nailed down, and the fishermen treated the Beothuk with contempt, distrust, and even hatred." Leading to the expedition of one John Guy in 1610 who when approached by hundreds of Beothuk ready to trade he fired his cannons at them. Some historians believe that this caused the Beothuk to forever mistrust the British.

If dealling with the Europeans was not bad enough the Beothuk also had to contend with their rivals to the south, the Micmacs. As the Micmac migration(1613) moved north they were brought into direct conflict with the Beothuk over the rich New Foundland fishing grounds. Armed with modern weapons from the French the Beothuk were once again driven inland away from sources of food. In conjunction was the increased permanent settlement of the shores by British colonists. Add in the various wars between the French and the British over the new territory there was little left of the traditional ways for the Beothuk. A census of 1827 failed to locate a single Beothuk coexisting in the wild. The last known living Beothuk was Nancey Shanawhdht who died in 1829. (Source, my grade eight and nine social studies teaching notes and the video series "Canada, A Peoples History)


----------



## beentheredoneit (3 Feb 2006)

One must ask if several African Nations are in the "business of peacekeeping" or in "peacekeeping for the business!


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2006)

The answer to the headline question, “Will Canada respond to the Ivory Coast?” may have more to do with domestic politics than foreign policy.

_Côte d’Ivoire_ (as it styles itself) is a mainstay of _la Francophonie_ and despite that fact that Canada has no vital interests anywhere in Africa, especially not in Côte d’Ivoire, it may be _desirable_ for Canada to take ‘some’ visible role there, in order to support Québec’s world-view.  As nearly as I can tell, from a cursory review of the French-Canadian press (_Le Droit_ and _Le Devoir_, a couple of times a week), there is little pressure for Canada to take any military action but that could change, as we all know, after one or two TV reports.


----------

