Will Canada respond to the Ivory Coast?

[3rd Herd]

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]

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

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.

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  :

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

                                Great post Enfield my sentiments exactly .

 

[GO!!!]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!!!]

.  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]

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]

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.

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.