OT - Zim$ not good anymore

I am crushed my $100,000,000,000 Zimbabwe bill has expired. Oh well,
nothing ventured, nothing gained,
How is the econony down there in the dark continent?

Ralphael, the OLD one

"Ralphael1" wrote in message
...
I am crushed my $100,000,000,000 Zimbabwe bill has expired. Oh well,
nothing ventured, nothing gained,
How is the econony down there in the dark continent?

Ralphael, the OLD one

Zimbabwe is not necessarily the poorest country, even now, because it is the
follower of a much more prosperous Rhodesia.

Here is an overview of the African economy, Ralph (the figures are a bit
old, unfortunately):

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

It is astonishing that Liberia, a country that didn't experience the
colonialism, is among the poorest of the continent. A contradiction, perhaps
(?).

--
Victor Manta

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://artonstamps.org/
Romania by Stamps: http://marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://reds-on.postalstamps.biz/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.sna-on.postalstamps.biz/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 14 jan, 15:27, "Victor Manta" wrote:
It is astonishing that Liberia, a country that didn't experience the
colonialism, is among the poorest of the continent. A contradiction, perhaps

Thats untrue
Liberia was colonized by Afro-americans, and their attitude to local
population could be worse than classical colonialism!

"antoin" wrote in message
...
On 14 jan, 15:27, "Victor Manta" wrote:
It is astonishing that Liberia, a country that didn't experience the
colonialism, is among the poorest of the continent. A contradiction,
perhaps

Thats untrue
Liberia was colonized by Afro-americans, and their attitude to local
population could be worse than classical colonialism!

OK, let's look more attentively at this country's history, antoin, and maybe
we can learn more about it.

"Founded as a colony in 1822 by freed slaves from the United States, the
area was already inhabited by various indigenous ethnic groups who had
occupied the region for centuries. ... . In 1847, the colony of freed slaves
declared independence and founded the Republic of Liberia.
Liberia's government, modeled after that of the United States, was
democratic in structure, if not always in substance.
Two problems confronting successive administrations were pressure from
neighboring colonial powers, Britain and France, and the threat of financial
insolvency, both of which challenged the country's sovereignty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

Those "Afro-americans" who colonized the country were mainly freed slaves
from the United States. How could you explain that those freed slaves,
people who knew exactly what slavery and opression means, could create a
republic that was even "worse than classical colonialism"? Something here ne
colle pas (doesn't fit together), isn't it? Maybe you can explain me why.

If we agree with the idea that those Liberia founders did something worse
than classical colonialism, should we infer that if the colonialist pressure
of France had succeeded then Liberia had a better fate? I have so many
reasons to doubt.

Interestingly enough: "The freed slaves were so thankful to American
president, James Monroe, they named their capital city, Monrovia",
"Historically, Liberia has enjoyed the support and unofficial cooperation of
the United States government" (the same source as above).

Just to mention that the Liberian PA issued, on Nov. 20th, 1959, two stamps
and a SS in memoriam of Abraham Lincoln (Sc. 385-386, C122) or on July 11th,
1968, three stamps in memoriam of Martin Luther King (Sc. 480-482).

Amicalement,

--
Victor Manta

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://artonstamps.org/
Romania by Stamps: http://marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://reds-on.postalstamps.biz/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.sna-on.postalstamps.biz/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Antoin's point refers to the following (also dfound in the
Wikipedia article.

"In 1822, the American Colonization Society established Liberia as a
place to send black people who were formerly enslaved. Other African
Americans, who were never enslaved, chose to emigrate to Liberia as
well. African-Americans gradually migrated to the colony and became
known as Americo-Liberians, from whom many present day Liberians trace
their ancestry. On July 26, 1847, the Americo-Liberian settlers
declared the independence of the Republic of Liberia.
Joseph Jenkins Roberts, First President of Liberia.

The settlers regarded Africa as a "Promised Land," but they did not
integrate into an African society. Once in Africa, they referred to
themselves as "Americans" and were recognized as such by local
Africans and by British colonial authorities in neighboring Sierra
Leone. The symbols of their state — its flag, motto, and seal — and
the form of government that they chose reflected their American
background and diaspora experience. Lincoln University (founded as
Ashmun Institute for educating young blacks in Pennsylvania in 1854)
played an important role in supplying Americo-Liberians leadership for
the new nation. The first graduating class of Lincoln University,
James R. Amos, his brother Thomas H. Amos, and Armistead Miller sailed
for Liberia on the brig Mary C. Stevens in April, 1859 after
graduation.

The religious practices, social customs and cultural standards of the
Americo-Liberians had their roots in the antebellum American South.
These ideals strongly influenced the attitudes of the settlers toward
the indigenous African people. The new nation, as they perceived it,
was coextensive with the settler community and with those Africans who
were assimilated into it. Mutual mistrust and hostility between the
"Americans" along the coast and the "Natives" of the interior was a
recurrent theme in the country's history, along with (usually
successful) attempts by the Americo-Liberian minority to dominate what
they identified as savage native peoples."

"Blair (TC)" wrote in message
...

I believe Antoin's point refers to the following (also dfound in the
Wikipedia article.

"In 1822, the American Colonization Society established Liberia as a
place to send black people who were formerly enslaved. Other African
Americans, who were never enslaved, chose to emigrate to Liberia as
well. African-Americans gradually migrated to the colony and became
known as Americo-Liberians, from whom many present day Liberians trace
their ancestry. On July 26, 1847, the Americo-Liberian settlers
declared the independence of the Republic of Liberia.
Joseph Jenkins Roberts, First President of Liberia.

The settlers regarded Africa as a "Promised Land," but they did not
integrate into an African society. Once in Africa, they referred to
themselves as "Americans" and were recognized as such by local
Africans and by British colonial authorities in neighboring Sierra
Leone. The symbols of their state — its flag, motto, and seal — and
the form of government that they chose reflected their American
background and diaspora experience. Lincoln University (founded as
Ashmun Institute for educating young blacks in Pennsylvania in 1854)
played an important role in supplying Americo-Liberians leadership for
the new nation. The first graduating class of Lincoln University,
James R. Amos, his brother Thomas H. Amos, and Armistead Miller sailed
for Liberia on the brig Mary C. Stevens in April, 1859 after
graduation.

The religious practices, social customs and cultural standards of the
Americo-Liberians had their roots in the antebellum American South.
These ideals strongly influenced the attitudes of the settlers toward
the indigenous African people. The new nation, as they perceived it,
was coextensive with the settler community and with those Africans who
were assimilated into it. Mutual mistrust and hostility between the
"Americans" along the coast and the "Natives" of the interior was a
recurrent theme in the country's history, along with (usually
successful) attempts by the Americo-Liberian minority to dominate what
they identified as savage native peoples."


Thanks, Blair. Of course I have read the full article too.

I wonder how does the whole answer my previous question (the citations being
from antoin's posting):

Those "Afro-americans" who colonized the country were mainly freed slaves
from the United States. How could you explain that those freed slaves,
people who knew exactly what slavery and opression means, could create a
republic that was even "worse than classical colonialism"? Something here ne
colle pas (doesn't fit together), isn't it? Maybe you can explain me why.

TIA.

--
Victor Manta

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://artonstamps.org/
Romania by Stamps: http://marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://reds-on.postalstamps.biz/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.sna-on.postalstamps.biz/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victor Manta wrote :

Thanks, Blair. Of course I have read the full article too.


Indeed Victor !

Then why not quoting the paragraphs in favour of antoin thesis ?


In addition to that I feel quite unconfortable in comparing the
explanations from Wikipedia in English and in French.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia says :

En 1822, le Libéria est fondé par une société américaine de colonisation
(The National Colonization Society of America, « la société nationale
d'Amérique de colonisation »), pour y installer des esclaves noirs
libérés. C'est le début d'un malaise entre les Américano-Libériens et la
population autochtone.
[It is the begining of a malaise between the Americano-Liberians and the
native population]

Le 26 juillet 1847, le Libéria devient une république indépendante. Le
suffrage censitaire permet à l'élite américano-Libérienne et au parti
True Whig de conserver le pouvoir durant un siècle.

...................

En 1931, la Société des Nations (SDN) condamne les conditions de travail
forcé imposées aux autochtones par les Américano-Libériens pour le
compte de multinationales de l'industrie du caoutchouc. Le scandale
contraint le gouvernement à la démission. En 1936, le nouveau
gouvernement interdit le travail forcé. Néanmoins, les autochtones,
privés de droit de vote, restent des citoyens de seconde zone. Il faudra
attendre mai 1945 pour que le président William Vacanarat Shadrach
Tubman accorde le droit de vote aux autochtones.

[It is only in 1945 that the native population gets the right to vote]

Hope this helps :-)

--

All the best,
Pierre Courtiade

"Pierre Courtiade" wrote in message
...
Victor Manta wrote :

Thanks, Blair. Of course I have read the full article too.


Indeed Victor !

Then why not quoting the paragraphs in favour of antoin thesis ?

In addition to that I feel quite unconfortable in comparing the
explanations from Wikipedia in English and in French.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia says :

En 1822, le Libéria est fondé par une société américaine de colonisation
(The National Colonization Society of America, « la société nationale
d'Amérique de colonisation »), pour y installer des esclaves noirs
libérés. C'est le début d'un malaise entre les Américano-Libériens et la
population autochtone.
[It is the begining of a malaise between the Americano-Liberians and the
native population]

Le 26 juillet 1847, le Libéria devient une république indépendante. Le
suffrage censitaire permet à l'élite américano-Libérienne et au parti
True Whig de conserver le pouvoir durant un siècle.


En 1931, la Société des Nations (SDN) condamne les conditions de travail
forcé imposées aux autochtones par les Américano-Libériens pour le
compte de multinationales de l'industrie du caoutchouc. Le scandale
contraint le gouvernement à la démission. En 1936, le nouveau
gouvernement interdit le travail forcé. Néanmoins, les autochtones,
privés de droit de vote, restent des citoyens de seconde zone. Il faudra
attendre mai 1945 pour que le président William Vacanarat Shadrach
Tubman accorde le droit de vote aux autochtones.

[It is only in 1945 that the native population gets the right to vote]

Hope this helps :-)

Bonjour Pierre,

I see that the discussion moved to Europe, what isn't bad for this
international group :-) Here we have the advantage that we can use any
language we want, but I'll continue nevertheless in English, which is the
language of the large majority of this ng participants.

Concerning this:
Then why not quoting the paragraphs in favour of antoin thesis ?
IMHO it isn't my obligation to find and then to cite arguments in favour of
others' thesises, especially when I didn't presented a thesis but just asked
some questions.

The article in French from Wikipedia on Liberia doesn't contain the same
information when compared to the English version. For example the part that
starts with: En 1931 ... is only in the French version. BTW, this part is
only partially (or maybe not at all?) confirmed by what I found:

"The League secured a commitment from Ethiopia to end slavery as a condition
of membership in 1926, and worked with Liberia to abolish forced labour and
inter-tribal slavery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Just to notice that inter-tribal slavery (which means also forced labor)
existed everywhere in the world where existed tribes, and it existed in the
whole world tout court before England, as first country, abolished slavery.
Just to remind you that it was the English fleet that chased then the French
vessels that transported the slaves from Africa to USA.

You see, Pierre, there are many opinions on the subject, like on most
others, and you cannot expect from me that I compare and then cite in
extenso different versions of all Wikipedia articles on Liberia, published
in the five languages that I understand.

Just to mention that my questions are still unanswered, in spite of so many
citations. Here i repost one of my questions (the citations being from
antoin's posting):

Those "Afro-americans" who colonized the country were mainly freed slaves
from the United States. How could you explain that those freed slaves,
people who knew exactly what slavery and opression means, could create a
republic that was even "worse than classical colonialism"?

Amicalement,

Victor

Victor Manta wrote :

Bonjour Pierre,

I see that the discussion moved to Europe, what isn't bad for this
international group :-) Here we have the advantage that we can use any
language we want, but I'll continue nevertheless in English, which is
the language of the large majority of this ng participants.


Hello Victor,

No problem at all with that : If I quoted a long text in French it was
just because I know you understand it very well.
And I translated the more relevant phrases for the benefit of those who
don't understand French (having not enough energy to translate all the
stuff !).


Concerning this:

Then why not quoting the paragraphs in favour of antoin thesis ?

IMHO it isn't my obligation to find and then to cite arguments in
favour of others' thesises, especially when I didn't presented a
thesis but just asked some questions.

Please Victor, could you please for once, stop your "arguments de
mauvaise foi" (arguing in bad faith ?).
You had not to *find* them as they were *in the middle* of the text you
quoted and I found quite strange to see that they *disappeared* from
your copy / paste quotation.

For me, a *partial* (as the contrary of total, full) quotation of any
text has always meant twisting, distorting the truth.

Lenin, Stalin and many others have been very good at this game. I am
quite sad and very disappointed to see you using the same methods than
those you frequently (and justly) criticize here.

...............


You finally write :

Just to mention that my questions are still unanswered, in spite of
so many citations. Here i repost one of my questions (the citations
being from antoin's posting):

Those "Afro-americans" who colonized the country were mainly freed
slaves from the United States. How could you explain that those freed
slaves, people who knew exactly what slavery and opression means,
could create a republic that was even "worse than classical
colonialism"?

It is up to antoin to answer your question.

I just note that in the second post of this thread you began a side
discussion, describing Liberia as a country that had not experienced the
colonialism.

This is IMHO a strange affirmation and this is what antoin contested.

I would not dare to compare this colonialism to the French one : for me,
all colonialisms are condemnable.

But I would consider that a country whose regime was condemned by
SDN (the predecessor of UNO) because of its behaviour vis a vis the
native blacks was an awful colonial regime.

Personnally I do not see why former slaves would *necessarily* be above
any reproach ?


--
Pierre Courtiade

"Pierre Courtiade" wrote in message
...
Victor Manta wrote :

Snip accusation of "arguments de mauvaise foi" (bad faith) - ad hominem,
red herring, less interesting. Idem snip Lenin+Stalin, even if related to
modern slavery, but too long to comment.


Those "Afro-americans" who colonized the country were mainly freed
slaves from the United States. How could you explain that those freed
slaves, people who knew exactly what slavery and opression means,
could create a republic that was even "worse than classical
colonialism"? VM

It is up to antoin to answer your question.

He hasn't but you have. Thanks!

I would not dare to compare this colonialism to the French one : for me,
all colonialisms are condemnable.

You are surely not the only one here.

But I would consider that a country whose regime was condemned by
SDN (the predecessor of UNO) because of its behaviour vis a vis the
native blacks was an awful colonial regime.

I've cited previously a sentence that says a quite different thing about
what LoN achieved in Liberia (actually, it ended the inter-tribal slavery).
The former Afro-Americans haven't a tribal organization, so that it's not
about them this time. Maybe you have overseen this part.

I suppose that the freed Afro-Americans went to the future Liberia to feel
free there, to be among people of the same color if not race, and to be far
away from the country where they were slaves.
Colonization means (answers.com): "The act or process of establishing a
colony or colonies." In this sense we can speak about the colonization of
the future Liberia by the Afro-Americans.

Colonialism is usually understood as the: "Control by one power over a
dependent area or people" (Merriam-Webster). It wasn't the US government
that colonized the future Liberia but just some free citizens of this
country went there! That's why I stated: "... Liberia, a country that didn't
experience the colonialism...". I haven't written that Liberia hadn't a
colony of freed Afro-Americans or that it hadn't experienced exploitation.
And during our discussion we also learned that the tribal Liberians
experienced slavery, like all tribal societies, one that existed before the
Afro-Americans came. But all this is not the result of a power that took
control and possession over the native Liberians and their territory.

Personnally I do not see why former slaves would *necessarily* be above
any reproach ?

That's a point, that many of them weren't "above any reproach". Have you
ever heard about freed Afro-Americans who, in the USA, owned as slaves other
Afro-Americans? Horrible but true.

The slavery is as long an institution as the humanity itself. The English
word "slave" comes from the Slavic people, because in Europe at a certain
time many of them were enslaved. Compare it then with the Russian word for
"slave", which is "rab". It originates actually in "arab". And so on, and so
on.

We have the chance to live in a world that in the most parts of it condemned
and abolished this institution but in the history of humanity this idea is
recent and revolutionary. In the not so distant past all ethnic groups were
enslaved or were slave owners a leur tour (alternatively).

--
Victor