Labour's missing £1bn in foreign aid

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340951/Where-did-Labours-1bn-foreign-aid-There-proper-records-says-scathing-report.html

Where did Labour's £1bn foreign aid go? There are no proper records, says scathing report


http://iaza.com/work/101231C/iaza12734236573500.bmp

Least we forget: Labour's staggering amount of debt not caused by global crisis, but sheer incompetence



Labour spent £1billion of taxpayers’ money on foreign aid to African and Asian schools without even monitoring whether it provided value, a damning report has found. The Department for International Development failed to measure if the huge cash investment has made any difference to school attendance rates in the poorest nations. DFID had even decided that the risk of money going astray was ‘manageable’ despite widespread fraud being detected in one educational programme in Kenya. MPs on the influential Public Accounts Committee have now given the department a year to reform.


The committee chairman, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, said: ‘My committee strongly supports the case for UK Government aid to primary education in developing countries and welcomes the significant progress being made in enrolment, particularly for girls. ‘What surprised us was the Department’s lack of a coherent framework for assessing the impact and value for money of its spending and its willingness instead to rest claims of overall performance on selective examples and anecdotes.’ She added: ‘This becomes all the more serious as the Department’s total aid budget increases in real terms by roughly a third between now and 2014-15.’ Mrs Hodge warned that DFID’s lavish spending could also be displacing other private sector providers and discouraging other funders. She added: ‘It should also take a tougher, clearer stance on the performance of the education systems it funds and pupil attainment.’


Matthew Sinclair, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘With the Government planning massive rises in international development spending, while ordinary families here are facing tax hikes, it is extremely worrying that in so many instances taxpayers don’t seem to be getting value for money. ‘We need to see more of this kind of scrutiny and the Government needs to restrain aid spending so that British families get a better deal.’


Oh deary me, more incompetence on a staggering scale brought to you by a completely hopeless bunch who couldn't change a nappy let alone run a country. Of course, i'm against foreign aid anyway as I feel that its very likely the majority of it cannot be accounted for (I read only the other week that apparently only 10% of the Haiti aid go to the people, the other 90% is unaccouted for) and to add to that; its not governments job to give away our money. But you must remember that the Tories/Liberal Democrats are also no good on this issue either, as they hiked the foreign aid budget up by a staggering 37% only a few months ago.


With this party [Labour] on 41% in the polls (discounting those who do not vote who are the biggest voting group) and with so much support for it on this forum, are some of us simply living on different planets? or is it just pure tribal ignorance? oh, and least not forget the £7.9 trillion debt left behind by Labour - so why do people still vote/support them I ask? I beg somebody for some sane reasons.

Thoughts, and some answers please because I am just mind boggled by it.

[Inseriousity.]

It's the same with some charities too. A significant amount going to the executives rather than the people it's supposed to go to. I've always been sceptical of charity anyway. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life" so I'm more a fan of the sustainable development charity work (building schools etc) although I'm sure if I was starving and hadn't eaten in days, I'd be much happier to see the person giving out food than the person building a school!

edit: Oh I'm against foreign aid too. Spend what you have, not what you don't.

[Jordy]

Mhm not surprising I suppose, the only reason we give Foreign Aid is to meet UN & EU targets on foreign aid, the figures therefore make this country "look good" on a world stage. The government doesn't actually care about benefiting people with the money or using it usefully, just as long as it's given away and looks good on paper. From what I understand we're also the only country to actually meet the targets.

[Catzsy]

What you fail to address, in another labour bashing thread is that it is Civil servants who have failed to monitor this expenditure who probably are not all labour supporters. In fact a labour MP headed this committee and report.




The committee chairman, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, said: ‘My committee strongly supports the case for UK Government aid to primary education in developing countries and welcomes the significant progress being made in enrolment, particularly for girls.

‘What surprised us was the Department’s lack of a coherent framework for assessing the impact and value for money of its spending and its willingness instead to rest claims of overall performance on selective examples and anecdotes.’

She added: ‘This becomes all the more serious as the Department’s total aid budget increases in real terms by roughly a third between now and 2014-15.’ Mrs Hodge warned that DFID’s lavish spending could also be displacing other private sector providers and discouraging other funders.

She added: ‘It should also take a tougher, clearer stance

Try to be a bit more objective when filing these threads, maybe?

Foreign aid is essential - it is humanitarian and most countries are of the same view. Admittedly it has to be accepted that all government departments should be audited regularly to make sure they have adequate financial controls to measure expenditure accurately and this is obviously what the Government, then, Labour, failed to do but as there were none in place it has also to be accepted that previous government's were also guilty of this which is the same as for the expensed scandal. These problems didnt just arise under a labour government. What would UKIP do about foreign aid?

[Suspective]

Whilst our country, is suffering cuts in major government departments. The 'international fund' is not even being slashed. Quite frankly, the fund should receive at least a 10% reduction. There is people in this country, living in poverty. I remember when I was watching Children in Need there was families with no belongings who had to sleep on the floor. Believe it or not, there is less fortunate people living in this country e.g. homeless people... all sorts.

Charity starts at home, its a tough time and the government need to re-assess and get there priorities and loyalties straight.

[Ajthedragon]

Well, it's Labour, what could you expect.

They spend, and don't even keep record of it.

[Catzsy]

Whilst our country, is suffering cuts in major government departments. The 'international fund' is not even being slashed. Quite frankly, the fund should receive at least a 10% reduction. There is people in this country, living in poverty. I remember when I was watching Children in Need there was families with no belongings who had to sleep on the floor. Believe it or not, there is less fortunate people living in this country e.g. homeless people... all sorts.

Charity starts at home, its a tough time and the government need to re-assess and get there priorities and loyalties straight.

You know perhaps we should all be thankful we don't live in Ethiopia. Even the poorest here are rich compared with a lot of third world countries.


Well, it's Labour, what could you expect.

They spend, and don't even keep record of it.

Have you even read the thread? It was the civil servants who didn't keep adequate accounts. Also what evidence do you have for such a sweeping statement which is totally subjective.

[Ajthedragon]

Have you even read the thread? It was the civil servants who didn't keep adequate accounts. Also what evidence do you have for such a sweeping statement which is totally subjective.

Hired by Labour. And the whole banking collapse would be a good example, they weren't going to exactly keep lending money they didn't own forever. Labour didn't really get that message. Labour have brought this country to rack and ruin in terms of it's finance. Worst yet, they sold our gold, our currency.

[Catzsy]

Hired by Labour. And the whole banking collapse would be a good example, they weren't going to exactly keep lending money they didn't own forever. Labour didn't really get that message. Labour have brought this country to rack and ruin in terms of it's finance. Worst yet, they sold our gold, our currency.

No, not necessarily. All civil servants are hired by senior civil servants and have to work with whatever government is in power. They don't change because the governments change. I might not agree with Dan most of the time but at least he is knowledgeabloe puts forward a solid argument instead of posting well worn sound bites.

[ifuseekamy]

Why are they still throwing money at these people? All it does is goes to the warmongering rulers who still believe in rain gods and witch doctors and hate white people anyway. A simpler and probably cheaper solution would be to reclaim the land as British territory and rebuild internally.

[Catzsy]

Why are they still throwing money at these people? All it does is goes to the warmongering rulers who still believe in rain gods and witch doctors and hate white people anyway. A simpler and probably cheaper solution would be to reclaim the land as British territory and rebuild internally.

Again a post with sweeping statements with little actual facts or substance or even any realistic knowledge of the situations in the third world. Yes, let's bring back the British Empire, plunder and exploit these lands again shall we. We were all better off in the 19th/ early 20th century when we didn't even look after our own poor. Lets send all our people on benefits to the work house. :P

[AgnesIO]

Try to be a bit more objective when filing these threads, maybe?

Foreign aid is essential - it is humanitarian and most countries are of the same view. Admittedly it has to be accepted that all government departments should be audited regularly to make sure they have adequate financial controls to measure expenditure accurately and this is obviously what the Government, then, Labour, failed to do but as there were none in place it has also to be accepted that previous government's were also guilty of this which is the same as for the expensed scandal. These problems didnt just arise under a labour government. What would UKIP do about foreign aid?

Decided to quote Catzy.

Perhaps if everyone makes sure they read this before replying, since honestly, she couldn't be any more spot on.

[Eoin247]

Why are they still throwing money at these people? All it does is goes to the warmongering rulers who still believe in rain gods and witch doctors and hate white people anyway. A simpler and probably cheaper solution would be to reclaim the land as British territory and rebuild internally.

Is this guy for real?This is a very ignorant statement no offence. You are saying this with no evidense behind it.

I've been to central african countries like Uganda where some of this aid goes. Most of them are christian/muslim for a start and very few nowdays believe in whichdoctors, certainly not the people in power.

They don't hate white people even though some have decent reason to. In fact if you're a white person you are a bit of a celebrity in africa since they see so few of them.

Your idea of a simpler solution... I sincerely hope that was a joke.

[Swastika]

UKIP would never come to power, so what UKIP would do in terms of foreign aid is irrelevant to be honest.
Foreign aid should be abolished, anything not in favour nor of British interests should be abolished (such as the illegal Afghan war).
It's a known fact that hardly anything of the billions & billions given actually goes to the people of the chosen country and the governments never do anything with the money either.
Look at Israel for instance, they receive 6 billion from the US every year - and what do they do? Kill innocent civilians with bombs bought with the money.

The sooner this country has a rising nationalist party, the better. I'm sick to the back teeth or modern day politics and kids talking about policies and politics they know nothing about.

[Catzsy]

UKIP would never come to power, so what UKIP would do in terms of foreign aid is irrelevant to be honest.
Foreign aid should be abolished, anything not in favour nor of British interests should be abolished (such as the illegal Afghan war).
It's a known fact that hardly anything of the billions & billions given actually goes to the people of the chosen country and the governments never do anything with the money either.
Look at Israel for instance, they receive 6 billion from the US every year - and what do they do? Kill innocent civilians with bombs bought with the money.

The sooner this country has a rising nationalist party, the better. I'm sick to the back teeth or modern day politics and kids talking about policies and politics they know nothing about.

And you think you have a superior knowledge to 'us kids'? Perhaps you should post a more informed argument then and tell us why we should become a nationalist society and what implications that would have for ALL the citizens of the UK.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What you fail to address, in another labour bashing thread is that it is Civil servants who have failed to monitor this expenditure who probably are not all labour supporters. In fact a labour MP headed this committee and report.

Well as the saying goes, she would say that wouldn't she - the same way in which Brown and Ed Balls said before and after the election that 'perhaps we got immigration wrong' and just as next election they will campaign on a manifesto of tightening immigration into this country - just as the Conservatives did and just as they are as powerless as Labour as the European Union now decides that area. I'm afraid saying sorry and 'lessons have been learnt' after you are out of office isn't good enough.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


Try to be a bit more objective when filing these threads, maybe?

Foreign aid is essential - it is humanitarian and most countries are of the same view. Admittedly it has to be accepted that all government departments should be audited regularly to make sure they have adequate financial controls to measure expenditure accurately and this is obviously what the Government, then, Labour, failed to do but as there were none in place it has also to be accepted that previous government's were also guilty of this which is the same as for the expensed scandal.

Foreign aid is essential? please don't talk political claptrap. Foreign aid is not essential in the slightest, how can we give foreign aid when our country has a £7.9 trillion debt? it defies economics and it defies common sense - you cannot give out money that you do not have. Foreign aid is a political tool which is used to 'buy out' countries to get them to tow our political line once in a while because as I said before, the aid ends up in the pockets of the politicians.

I can't put it any better than Jesse Ventura when it comes to foreign aid;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLywvxki39U


As for Labour and the last government along with expenses, yeah yeah yeah - they had 13 years and they failed to do anything, all of them were in on it and thats the absolute truth - they take you all for fools and you are still willing to be fooled by them time and time again.


These problems didnt just arise under a labour government.

The debt problem did arise under the Labour govermment, and whatever problems there may have been Labour had 13 years to make them better i'm afraid yet they didn't - expenses wasn't allowed to carry on because 'oh we didnt have enough time' - it was allowed to continue because they also had their hands in the till.


What would UKIP do about foreign aid?

They'd cut it completely i'd hope, even reduce - i'd like to see it reduced to £0.


No, not necessarily. All civil servants are hired by senior civil servants and have to work with whatever government is in power. They don't change because the governments change. I might not agree with Dan most of the time but at least he is knowledgeabloe puts forward a solid argument instead of posting well worn sound bites.

And the civil service was turned political by the Labour government by allowing Alistair Campbell to become involved/direct the Civil service, so the blame lays directly with Labour - that said, even if the civil service was still non-political the governing party still runs the government which means the civil service is subservant to the elected parliament.


Again a post with sweeping statements with little actual facts or substance or even any realistic knowledge of the situations in the third world. Yes, let's bring back the British Empire, plunder and exploit these lands again shall we. We were all better off in the 19th/ early 20th century when we didn't even look after our own poor. Lets send all our people on benefits to the work house. :P

And build many roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, electric cables and so forth as we did? Africa now has its independence and what has it achieved? nothing; had the British and other Europeans not have gone to Africa they would still be in the same position they were back in 1000AD. If people want to give to charity then let them, don't have the state do it for me. Why should the government take our money we which worked and earned and pass it on to Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF crooks?

The fact is that Labour lost us a clear £1bn in this case due to sheer incompetence.

[Suspective]

And build many roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, electric cables and so forth as we did? Africa now has its independence and what has it achieved? nothing; had the British and other Europeans not have gone to Africa they would still be in the same position they were back in 1000AD. If people want to give to charity then let them, don't have the state do it for me. Why should the government take our money we which worked and earned and pass it on to Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF crooks?

I Completely agree with you. There is enough charities around that support the countries in practical ways, by visiting them and assisting them e.g. Oxfam. Why just transfer money to their bank accounts? Maybe, if foreign aid from the government was scrapped it could be spent on better things and maybe lead to a reduction in debt and in the long run taxation.

[Swastika]

And you think you have a superior knowledge to 'us kids'? Perhaps you should post a more informed argument then and tell us why we should become a nationalist society and what implications that would have for ALL the citizens of the UK.
The fact your arguing against nationalism is laughable, we're giving billions to foreign countries so they can re-build their national pride and your sat here asking me why we should become a nationalist society? There are far too many points to make about nationalism, if your really that bothered send me a PM.

[Catzsy]

The fact your arguing against nationalism is laughable, we're giving billions to foreign countries so they can re-build their national pride and your sat here asking me why we should become a nationalist society? There are far too many points to make about nationalism, if your really that bothered send me a PM.

I am not arguing against Nationalism I am asking you to explain it which is what you keep saying you want to do. :P

[Swastika]

I am not arguing against Nationalism I am asking you to explain it which is what you keep saying you want to do. :P
Not by hi-jacking somebodies thread.

A nationalist political party would be one that shows patriotism and would sacrifice everything for Britain, much like the Nazi Party of Germany.
The term nationalist would describe patriotism and dedication towards your homeland, and socialism would be much like "British jobs for British workers" or by using our own resources such as steel rather go looking abroad for it.
A national socialist party would work wonders for this country IF it was done correctly and did not follow the paths of the NSDAP of Germany.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no existing National Socialist party in the UK that doesn't link its self to racist skinhead thugs.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not by hi-jacking somebodies thread.

A nationalist political party would be one that shows patriotism and would sacrifice everything for Britain, much like the Nazi Party of Germany.
The term nationalist would describe patriotism and dedication towards your homeland, and socialism would be much like "British jobs for British workers" or by using our own resources such as steel rather go looking abroad for it.
A national socialist party would work wonders for this country IF it was done correctly and did not follow the paths of the NSDAP of Germany.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no existing National Socialist party in the UK that doesn't link its self to racist skinhead thugs.

George Orwell argued (and I agree with this notion) that nationalism was different from patriotism, nationalism is the desire to impose your way of life on other nations (a strand of imperialism) whereas patriotism is a sense of pride in your country and not wanting to impose it on others along with realising the differences between nations.

Now historically i'm a nationalist - if you placed me back in 1700 I would argue the case for Empire and I do believe that overall the British Empire was a force for good, much more so than its European rivals which more so took wealth and never reinvested it whereas we did (its testiment the large number of colonial buildings that stand in former British colonies compared to French/Belgian colonies). But in the modern age, i'm a patriot - and afterall with the EU, we are fighting nationalism as that political class wishes to create an identity and force it upon the nations of Europe.

Just thought i'd add that anyway, Orwell is very interesting as is idealogy in general; apologies for spelling mistakes though, very tired. :P

[HotelUser]

Not by hi-jacking somebodies thread.

A nationalist political party would be one that shows patriotism and would sacrifice everything for Britain, much like the Nazi Party of Germany.
The term nationalist would describe patriotism and dedication towards your homeland, and socialism would be much like "British jobs for British workers" or by using our own resources such as steel rather go looking abroad for it.
A national socialist party would work wonders for this country IF it was done correctly and did not follow the paths of the NSDAP of Germany.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no existing National Socialist party in the UK that doesn't link its self to racist skinhead thugs.

A Nationalist party would be a ****** 20th century decision which would spiral the world back in time into a ****** political and unconstructive mess where self pride prevails over valuing the life of those around us.

Sources: Please see Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust).





George Orwell argued (and I agree with this notion) that nationalism was different from patriotism, nationalism is the desire to impose your way of life on other nations (a strand of imperialism) whereas patriotism is a sense of pride in your country and not wanting to impose it on others along with realising the differences between nations.

Now historically i'm a nationalist - if you placed me back in 1700 I would argue the case for Empire and I do believe that overall the British Empire was a force for good, much more so than its European rivals which more so took wealth and never reinvested it whereas we did (its testiment the large number of colonial buildings that stand in former British colonies compared to French/Belgian colonies). But in the modern age, i'm a patriot - and afterall with the EU, we are fighting nationalism as that political class wishes to create an identity and force it upon the nations of Europe.

Just thought i'd add that anyway, Orwell is very interesting as is idealogy in general; apologies for spelling mistakes though, very tired. :P

Wrong. Please see modern day Africa, and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Americas).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wrong. Please see modern day Africa, and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Americas).

Yes indeed, modern day Africa - which is a mess. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but Britain no longer owns or controls any colonies in Africa and its demise seemed to co-incide with the time that Britain left Africa with the demise of Rhodesia in particular. Africa is reverting back to the tribal land it always has been, something the British tried (and ultimately failed) so quash out of them.

As for the Americas, the disease was not a genocide as it was mainly accidental with only a few random cases of deliberate killing using disease. I myself have said bad things went on, such as what can only be described as a massacre in the British Raj (India) by General Dyer on innocent people.

But look at Amazon tribes now (and they are horrific), you can watch videos of buried alive children where this practise still continues. They remain backward, and yet your logic (in terms of Iraq/Afghanistan) was to intervene - so why not intervene in this brutal killing also just as the British did many years ago? the British actually treated the red Indians far better than the Americans for example, we sectioned large reserves for the remaining tribes and when we lost control of the 13 colonies many Indian tribes migrated northwards into British North America (modern day Canada) which was still under the rule of Britain.

I'd like to know where Africa/Asia would be without the British infastructure they still depend on along with the advancements that the British brought about in terms of battling tropical diseases and birth deaths - not in a good place I can gurantee, far worse than they are now.


Many academics have heavily refuted the argument that the spread of disease was intentional.

The spread of disease was tragic, but not intentional - we did not spread it in order to wipe out the native tribes as your history teacher has most likely taught you taking a totally anti-British viewpoint on this topic. In a few cases, yes - you do have evil/intentional genocide but not overall.

[Catzsy]

Not by hi-jacking somebodies thread.

A nationalist political party would be one that shows patriotism and would sacrifice everything for Britain, much like the Nazi Party of Germany.
The term nationalist would describe patriotism and dedication towards your homeland, and socialism would be much like "British jobs for British workers" or by using our own resources such as steel rather go looking abroad for it.
A national socialist party would work wonders for this country IF it was done correctly and did not follow the paths of the NSDAP of Germany.
Unfortunately, at the moment there is no existing National Socialist party in the UK that doesn't link its self to racist skinhead thugs.

Well it's not hijacking the thread as points lead to other points. You still haven't made yourself clear as to how it would operate and what implications it would have for All the citizens of this country. Would have an example say of a party manifesto that you admire. Dan I haven't forgotten your post. Just need to find some time to reply. :P

[HotelUser]

Yes indeed, modern day Africa - which is a mess. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but Britain no longer owns or controls any colonies in Africa and its demise seemed to co-incide with the time that Britain left Africa with the demise of Rhodesia in particular. Africa is reverting back to the tribal land it always has been, something the British tried (and ultimately failed) so quash out of them.

As for the Americas, the disease was not a genocide as it was mainly accidental with only a few random cases of deliberate killing using disease. I myself have said bad things went on, such as what can only be described as a massacre in the British Raj (India) by General Dyer on innocent people.

But look at Amazon tribes now (and they are horrific), you can watch videos of buried alive children where this practise still continues. They remain backward, and yet your logic (in terms of Iraq/Afghanistan) was to intervene - so why not intervene in this brutal killing also just as the British did many years ago? the British actually treated the red Indians far better than the Americans for example, we sectioned large reserves for the remaining tribes and when we lost control of the 13 colonies many Indian tribes migrated northwards into British North America (modern day Canada) which was still under the rule of Britain.

I'd like to know where Africa/Asia would be without the British infastructure they still depend on along with the advancements that the British brought about in terms of battling tropical diseases and birth deaths - not in a good place I can gurantee, far worse than they are now.


I guess it's harsh to push total blame onto the British Empire for all of Africa, but they were a major player in the export of slaves, as well as turning countries in Africa into their satellites and colonizing. That's crippled a lot of Africa and that's on the old empire's head.

There was a British man who controlled a Canadian city, Halifax by the name of Edward Cornwallis. He paid what's now thousands of dollars to any citizen who brought him back the human scalps of anative. People from the Empire went out and killed thousands of natives, babies even, ruthlessly for his money.

The Empire also enslaved natives, and forced them into something called residential schools here in Canada. A reason the Canadian Government pays reparations out to native familes now is because of how they were treated in these schools. The children had to live away from the parents, and learn English. Speaking their native tongue resulted in beatings or death. The death rate amongst students of these schools was horrendous. Excessive rape and abuse toward students.

In Canada atleast, it's a very fundamental part of every history course, as well as something which is usually an element in most history courses you will see over here, where the British Empire is portrayed most always as the big bad government who takes advantage of everyone else. Their aggression towards natives is not simply biological. It's vicious and intended genocide with cold blooded murder for self gain at heart.

Also some food for thought Dan, saying "Red Native" is typically offensive here, and no the British Empire treated Americans a thousand times better than they did Natives. Even after we were independent we still treated them worse and today in our society there's even still biases against them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I guess it's harsh to push total blame onto the British Empire for all of Africa, but they were a major player in the export of slaves, as well as turning countries in Africa into their satellites and colonizing. That's crippled a lot of Africa and that's on the old empire's head.

If anything its the opposite way around, yes slavery was wrong but Africans population is exploding at the moment and its struggling to feed its population due to a high population (Africa will in the future, combined, have a population higher than that of China and India). The slavery was wrong from the offset yes, and English people suffered also from the slavery as those who worked on the boats actually suffered a higher mortality rate than the slaves themselves would you believe - but Britain abolished it first, we even pirated and attacked other nations ships carrying slaves because we felt the practice to be that wrong.


There was a British man who controlled a Canadian city, Halifax by the name of Edward Cornwallis. He paid what's now thousands of dollars to any citizen who brought him back the human scalps of native. People from the Empire went out and killed thousands of natives, babies even, ruthlessly for his money.

As I said before, there were bad guys in it - just as some soldiers in Iraq are just the same. I pointed to General Dyer in the British Raj, turning the rifles on innocents for assembling when assembling was banned.


The Empire also enslaved natives, and forced them into something called residential schools here in Canada. A reason the Canadian Government pays reparations out to native familes now is because of how they were treated in these schools. The children had to live away from the parents, and learn English. The death rate amongst students of these schools was horrendous. Excessive rape and abuse toward students.

I have not read of native slavery, I know though that natives migrated to the British North America precisely because the British treated them well (the Crown) as opposed to those who were in the thirteen colonies both before independence and afterwards. As for schools, well yeah people saw people of differing ethnic origin different back then - thats hardly the fault of the British Empire. Britain opened its arms remember after the end of Empire to many immigrants from across the Empire.


In Canada atleast, it's a very fundamental part of every history course, as well as something which is usually an element in most history courses you will see over here, where the British Empire is portrayed most always as the big bad government who takes advantage of everyone else. Their aggression towards natives is not simply biological. It's vicious and intended genocide with cold blooded murder for self gain at heart.

I asked where the genocide was, there was none. The disease was accidental, except for a few isolated cases. Other than that, the British were accomodating to the natives (again, the natives followed the British upto North America after the 13 colonies ceaded from the early Empire) and i'm reading accounts in my book i'm reading at the moment now where the British tried to integrate the natives into the new world that was being formed.

Britain gave much more than it took away, and in those cases where it did take away - it was mainly isolated action.


Also some food for thought Dan, saying "Red Native" is typically offensive here, and no the British Empire treated Americans a thousand times better than they did Natives. Even after we were independent we still treated them worse and today in our society there's even still biases against them.

I don't do political correctness i'm afraid.

As for treating Americans better than the red Indians, of course we did - they were our people, they were the people willing to farm and build a new colony up for us so we could match the might of Iberia in what it had done with South America. The natives on the other hand in many cases weren't willing to be part of this new adventure, and thus i'm sure in many cases felt the need to attack the British - so on one hand you have your own people who you share deep links with, on the other hand you have a group which (like it or not) did not contribute and only caused trouble for British rule - who are the British going to favour I ask you?

Note: I wrote the 'treating Americans' wrong in the last post, I was referring to the treatment of the r-Indians by the British to the Americans (after ceading from the Empire).

[Moh]

Yeah, if I had £1bn, I'd forget where I spent it too.

[ifuseekamy]

Most African countries are backwards hellholes. Obviously by reclaiming them it would be for the greater good, not slavery or whatever. Or does imperialism in the name of morality now only apply when the country is abundant with oil?

[AgnesIO]

Most African countries are backwards hellholes. Obviously by reclaiming them it would be for the greater good, not slavery or whatever. Or does imperialism in the name of morality now only apply when the country is abundant with oil?

What a pathetic, insulting post.

[ifuseekamy]

What a pathetic, insulting post.
Why lol

[AgnesIO]

Why lol

I know many countries in Africa that are not all 'backward', it isn't their fault other countries took advantage of them?

[Jordy]

I know many countries in Africa that are not all 'backward', it isn't their fault other countries took advantage of them?Most are backwards, like it or not. The exceptions are South Africa and the Arabic one's in the north, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt etc. The rest are mostly dependant on foreign aid, have high unemployment rates, large amounts of the population with AIDs, no basic infrastructure, a corrupt or military government, low life expectancies, poor human rights etc. I could go on but I sense you get what I mean, to me that is backwards.

Only on HabboxForum would we have someone advocating parts of the Nazi party manifesto, what a joke Current Affairs has become.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I know many countries in Africa that are not all 'backward', it isn't their fault other countries took advantage of them?

Why is it the fault of Great Britain and other European nations (who built roads, schools, hospitals, railways, grand buildings, legal systems, electric lines etc) that Africa cannot run itself, when Europeans left Africa nearly 50 years ago now and since leaving Africa has faced decline under self-rule?

Please explain how it is the fault of Great Britain and Co that Africa has gone from a prosperous continent to a general hell hole?

I don't quite see the point(?) you are trying to make.

[AgnesIO]

Why is it the fault of Great Britain and other European nations (who built roads, schools, hospitals, railways, grand buildings, legal systems, electric lines etc) that Africa cannot run itself, when Europeans left Africa nearly 50 years ago now and since leaving Africa has faced decline under self-rule?

Please explain how it is the fault of Great Britain and Co that Africa has gone from a prosperous continent to a general hell hole?

I don't quite see the point(?) you are trying to make.

Great Britain helped Africa in a lot of ways and in many other ways did not.

50 years is not a long time - people seem to forget that it is bloody difficult to suddenly become as rich as Britain is from having nothing. How do you suggest African countries stop relying on foreign aid when they have nothing? Few people make masses of money off nothing - and 50 years for an entire country to stop being in huge poverty is nothing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Great Britain helped Africa in a lot of ways and in many other ways did not.

50 years is not a long time - people seem to forget that it is bloody difficult to suddenly become as rich as Britain is from having nothing. How do you suggest African countries stop relying on foreign aid when they have nothing? Few people make masses of money off nothing - and 50 years for an entire country to stop being in huge poverty is nothing.

Africa has huge reserves of oil, diamonds and minerals (not to mention the hundreds of billions it has recieved from the west) - hence why China is so interested in Africa at the moment and is buying from Africa. If African nations were able to sort themselves out politically and use that money to develop some sort of economic policy then they could very well experience the same kind of growth that China and India have done so in the past two decades. Look at Rhodesia for example, it was flourishing under British management and now look at it as modern-day Zimbabwe.

But again it comes down to poor management, the likes of Mugabe and their corrupt governments simply pocket it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Atleast with Dan's stance with the North American Native genocide it's due to his lack of knowledge on the subject which is understandable because it's not a history he'd touch upon on where he is.

Actually in the last reply you climbed down, and as I rightly sussed out - you've been taught all the negatives with your education system with no positives given of which there are many, not to mention the fact i've read about the subject and which you did not reply to my finding that British ships actually pirated other European ships carrying slaves after Britain had abolished it. I have given the various positives, to which all you can come back with is 'genocide' when infact disease is not classed as genocide as the disease was for the vast part accidental - yet I haven't had a reply to this, but I do look forward to a reply to my last post.

I may not have covered the settlement of North America in school history, but nor have I covered the EU, modern politics, imperialism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Holy Roman Empire and so on - the difference between us I guess, is that i've actually read around and read differing sources rather than listening to everything my teacher/school of thought tells me. I learn far more on my own back than I learn in school.

Would appreciate a reply to my last reply on North America and the 'genocide' of the red Indians.

[HotelUser]

Actually in the last reply you climbed down, and as I rightly sussed out - you've been taught all the negatives with your education system with no positives given of which there are many, not to mention the fact i've read about the subject and which you did not reply to my finding that British ships actually pirated other European ships carrying slaves after Britain had abolished it. I have given the various positives, to which all you can come back with is 'genocide' when infact disease is not classed as genocide as the disease was for the vast part accidental - yet I haven't had a reply to this, but I do look forward to a reply to my last post.

I may not have covered the settlement of North America in school history, but nor have I covered the EU, modern politics, imperialism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Holy Roman Empire and so on - the difference between us I guess, is that i've actually read around and read differing sources rather than listening to everything my teacher/school of thought tells me. I learn far more on my own back than I learn in school.

Would appreciate a reply to my last reply on North America and the 'genocide' of the red Indians.

I'll accept that we're at an impasse due to geographics but that's about it Dan. I think it very much so happened but like any culture you don't learn much about the self committed genocides and tend to touch on negative aspects of your own history too much :P

[AgnesIO]

Africa has huge reserves of oil, diamonds and minerals (not to mention the hundreds of billions it has recieved from the west) - hence why China is so interested in Africa at the moment and is buying from Africa. If African nations were able to sort themselves out politically and use that money to develop some sort of economic policy then they could very well experience the same kind of growth that China and India have done so in the past two decades. Look at Rhodesia for example, it was flourishing under British management and now look at it as modern-day Zimbabwe.

But again it comes down to poor management, the likes of Mugabe and their corrupt governments simply pocket it.

Mugabe is an evil, evil man but it isn't all about him.

You seem to forget that many African's work for really long hours, mining the precious minerals you mention - but they get paid pence for their work.

[Eoin247]

Most African countries are backwards hellholes. Obviously by reclaiming them it would be for the greater good, not slavery or whatever. Or does imperialism in the name of morality now only apply when the country is abundant with oil?


Refer to my first post on this thread when i quoted you.


What many of you are forgetting here is that the western world still screws Africa, although they tend do it in increasingly sneaky ways.

[GommeInc]

Governments giving to third world/African countries is incredibly dodgy (this is related to the posts on page 2). The money goes directly to the head of the country, so it is entirely up to them where the money goes in most cases, money easily goes missing afterall :P

That said, not all foreign aid goes missing or is spent on the wrong things, but some of the countries do not need as much (if any) now, some have developed decent enough economic structures and could begin exporting good, rather than relying on imports/aid.

[Suspective]

Anyway Amy, why would we want to reclaim these countries? It would just waste even more money. I don't see how it will do any good really, for Britain's economic position or even status.