So We Just Gon Act Like You Pan-Africanists Ain't About To Get Your Wish?
Stack Money
Members Posts: 994 ✭✭✭
I know yall ? been payin attention to whats goin on in Africa wit the super countries they tryna form.
On one hand you got the East African Federation wit Burundi Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda and prolly South Sudan mergin into a superstate by 2013. They already gettin they own currency and poolin they resources is gonna help their economy, especially wit the rich natural resources these countries got and the tourism they can bring in from the historic sites/culture. But wit the Lord's Resistance Army murkin ? in Uganda and South Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Army actually runnin the government of South Sudan, and the Hutu and Tutsi rebels of Rwanda who stay havin genocides wit each other this country gon break the record for most civil wars b.
Then you got the Arab Maghreb Union consistin of Algeria Libya Mauritania Morocco and Tunisia wit the eventual goal of formin a superstate possibly includin Chad Egypt Mali Niger and Sudan. The biggest holdup has been them ? not gettin along wit Gaddafi's bi-polar ass who stayed flip floppin all the time (? tried to create like 35 different countries wit errbody in the Middle East since the 70s) and Algeria and Morocco beefin over Western Sahara, but now that Gaddafi done got his wig split and Morocco and Algeria started holdin emergency meetins to put aside they differences in order to make the unity a reality (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood who wants a Arab superstate as well increasin they power in Egypt and the Maghreb countries) ? looks like this thing finally bout to go down.
I'm all for these African countries smartenin up and creatin they own eventual world power but wit all the militant ass ? involved in these two future superstates they either gon self destruct or start World War III, real talk the sociopath in me is actually hopin they come together just to ? up ? on a Worldwide scale mutilatin and beheadin cats wit impunity. The West done had they boot on the necks of these ? for too long so its time they set ? off and show the world how grimey Africa really is.
On one hand you got the East African Federation wit Burundi Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda and prolly South Sudan mergin into a superstate by 2013. They already gettin they own currency and poolin they resources is gonna help their economy, especially wit the rich natural resources these countries got and the tourism they can bring in from the historic sites/culture. But wit the Lord's Resistance Army murkin ? in Uganda and South Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Army actually runnin the government of South Sudan, and the Hutu and Tutsi rebels of Rwanda who stay havin genocides wit each other this country gon break the record for most civil wars b.
Then you got the Arab Maghreb Union consistin of Algeria Libya Mauritania Morocco and Tunisia wit the eventual goal of formin a superstate possibly includin Chad Egypt Mali Niger and Sudan. The biggest holdup has been them ? not gettin along wit Gaddafi's bi-polar ass who stayed flip floppin all the time (? tried to create like 35 different countries wit errbody in the Middle East since the 70s) and Algeria and Morocco beefin over Western Sahara, but now that Gaddafi done got his wig split and Morocco and Algeria started holdin emergency meetins to put aside they differences in order to make the unity a reality (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood who wants a Arab superstate as well increasin they power in Egypt and the Maghreb countries) ? looks like this thing finally bout to go down.
I'm all for these African countries smartenin up and creatin they own eventual world power but wit all the militant ass ? involved in these two future superstates they either gon self destruct or start World War III, real talk the sociopath in me is actually hopin they come together just to ? up ? on a Worldwide scale mutilatin and beheadin cats wit impunity. The West done had they boot on the necks of these ? for too long so its time they set ? off and show the world how grimey Africa really is.
Comments
-
Hi KTULU. Wit Obama gettin involved in Uganda to take down the Lord's Resistance Army they comin for that ass too, the US gon get trapped in that mess and have to actually invade once Kony's militia starts killin American troops which is prolly gon kick off WWIII.Isn't that what President Obama's real agenda is all about? (aka) Transforming America -- SERIOUSLY what other race could actually pull that off? you and most realize NO black man can ever be questioned about his competence? just cram it down the folks throats & STFUP. -
Stack Money wrote: »I know yall ? been payin attention to whats goin on in Africa wit the super countries they tryna form.
On one hand you got the East African Federation wit Burundi Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda and prolly South Sudan mergin into a superstate by 2013. They already gettin they own currency and poolin they resources is gonna help their economy, especially wit the rich natural resources these countries got and the tourism they can bring in from the historic sites/culture. But wit the Lord's Resistance Army murkin ? in Uganda and South Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Army actually runnin the government of South Sudan, and the Hutu and Tutsi rebels of Rwanda who stay havin genocides wit each other this country gon break the record for most civil wars b.
Then you got the Arab Maghreb Union consistin of Algeria Libya Mauritania Morocco and Tunisia wit the eventual goal of formin a superstate possibly includin Chad Egypt Mali Niger and Sudan. The biggest holdup has been them ? not gettin along wit Gaddafi's bi-polar ass who stayed flip floppin all the time (? tried to create like 35 different countries wit errbody in the Middle East since the 70s) and Algeria and Morocco beefin over Western Sahara, but now that Gaddafi done got his wig split and Morocco and Algeria started holdin emergency meetins to put aside they differences in order to make the unity a reality (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood who wants a Arab superstate as well increasin they power in Egypt and the Maghreb countries) ? looks like this thing finally bout to go down.
I'm all for these African countries smartenin up and creatin they own eventual world power but wit all the militant ass ? involved in these two future superstates they either gon self destruct or start World War III, real talk the sociopath in me is actually hopin they come together just to ? up ? on a Worldwide scale mutilatin and beheadin cats wit impunity. The West done had they boot on the necks of these ? for too long so its time they set ? off and show the world how grimey Africa really is.
I'm really behind on African politics.
North African Arabs and Berbers have nothing in common, culturally or ethnically, with indigenous sub-saharan Africans. I think they have more grounds to identify and unite with West Asians.IMO any predominately black country will slaughter our soldiers & usually drag their bodies down the streets like trophies. It's always a catch 22 situation.
I don't think so. I think American soldiers would be respected in most African countries. -
I'm really behind on African politics.
North African Arabs and Berbers have nothing in common, culturally or ethnically, with indigenous sub-saharan Africans. I think they have more grounds to identify and unite with West Asians.
I don't think so. I think American soldiers would be respected in most African countries.
Somalia brah -
I been figured out heyslick one of your many aliases b.Hi who? - I could take that as a compliment and say thank you. KTULU truly despises me,so you may need to blow his little ego back up after that low blow insinuation/comparison. IMO any predominately black country will slaughter our soldiers & usually drag their bodies down the streets like trophies. It's always a catch 22 situation.
You ain't heard? The Arab Maghreb Union is completely ignorin the Berbers and just sayin its gon be a Arab state, which is causin alot of controversy over there.I'm really behind on African politics.
North African Arabs and Berbers have nothing in common, culturally or ethnically, with indigenous sub-saharan Africans. I think they have more grounds to identify and unite with West Asians.
Alot of them Sub-Saharan African countries got large Muslim populations so of course they have alot in common. Besides that Arabs done identified wit Sub-Saharan Africans many times in the past just off the fact they got similar causes bein oppressed peoples, thats the same reason they identify wit countries all over the world like Venezuela. Regardless these states comin together is all African unity.I don't think so. I think American soldiers would be respected in most African countries.straightupsho wrote: »Somalia brah -
You ain't heard? The Arab Maghreb Union is completely ignorin the Berbers and just sayin its gon be a Arab state, which is causin alot of controversy over there.
It's funny how Ghaddafi is touted as a 'pan-Africanist' but he banned the teaching of Berber languages in Libyan schools and made a great effort to suppress and eliminate Berber cultures in favor of Arab culture.Alot of them Sub-Saharan African countries got large Muslim populations so of course they have alot in common. Besides that Arabs done identified wit Sub-Saharan Africans many times in the past
Not generally, I don't think. Racism against Black Africans is very strong in North African cultures. I don't see what they have in common and I don't consider them (Arabs/Berbers) to be my people. Northern Nigeria might have a lot in common with Saudi Arabia since they both practice Sharia law and backwards, 'extreme' (ie. consistent) Islam but Islam in Senegal is moderate and I don't think they have more in common with other Islamic countries than Christian Zambians do with Christian Americans or Australians.Regardless these states comin together is all African unity.
I care about Black African unity.
As for Black Hawk Down, I said 'most'. I think Americans would be welcomed in most African countries, I could be wrong. -
The south of the Sudan police n military forces have been trained/are getting trained by the Dutch police force and others, the president of the South is well known for pro bush/america mentality. The south of the sudan is monitored to say the least by Dutch and other western governments/companies. This is no secret, the country doesn't even have 40 miles of highway, it is in construction and Dutch goverment institutes and churches are helping the South in it's 'construction'....
I don;t see that superstate happening at all and with all the uprisings/revolutions etc in the region, the African Union/Maghrib Union/Arab Liga etc everything related to government policies and such is changing over there.
also Huruma, obviously you don't know jack about african history cause countries like Morocco/Mauritania/mali etc, de Niger/Libya and Sudan/Egypt/Etiopia/Eriterea/Somalia etc have had huge impact on eachother culturally and traditionly. Saying Sub Sahara Africa is in no way related to Northern Africa is extremely ignorant....'we' people of the sahara or people of the desert, we come in all shades and share traditions you probably never heard about.
Google sub sahara africa, countries like the sudan/somalia/etiopia have way more in common culturally/history wise with the land accross the red sea and the northen states than with the southern states of Africa like Namibia, Botswana etc.....you cats making up borders, pretending that the people in northern chad/niger/mali/senegal etc have nothing in common with people from the mauritania/western sahara etc is just ridiculous. Like I said in my previous post, our langueges/traditions etc over there are much more alike than with the rest of what you call 'sub sahara africa'.
also huruma you talk about black unity not realizing that A: there are many blacks in Northern Africa, B: Mauritania is a mostly black nation but it isn't in the 'sub sahara', C: Sudan/Etiopia are in the 'sub sahara' but have obviously way more in common with 'west asians and northern africans' than with most other nations in southern/mid africa, history/culture/traditions wise....and most importnatly
Africa is friggin huge.....
Also I speak Arab/Morocan, but I didn't understand half if not most of what Qadhafi was saying, he spoke in libian (native african languege), he probably banned some rival tribal berber langues (cause you do realize that there are dozens of berber langueges and cultures etc?) he spoke native libyan langauge all the time, especially when the war started... -
Thats cause Gaddafi was a Pan-Arabist.It's funny how Ghaddafi is touted as a 'pan-Africanist' but he banned the teaching of Berber languages in Libyan schools and made a great effort to suppress and eliminate Berber cultures in favor of Arab culture.
SMH @ you hatin on the Muslims. Most North Africans realize black Africans are their people too since they got alot of black Africans in their countries, blacks in America came from all over Africa so to say them ? ain't your people cause they ain't "black" is just stupid.Not generally, I don't think. Racism against Black Africans is very strong in North African cultures. I don't see what they have in common and I don't consider them (Arabs/Berbers) to be my people. Northern Nigeria might have a lot in common with Saudi Arabia since they both practice Sharia law and backwards, 'extreme' (ie. consistent) Islam but Islam in Senegal is moderate and I don't think they have more in common with other Islamic countries than Christian Zambians do with Christian Americans or Australians.
I care about Black African unity.
Definitely not the Muslim majority ones.As for Black Hawk Down, I said 'most'. I think Americans would be welcomed in most African countries, I could be wrong.
Most of the military in South Sudan is made up of the Sudan People's Liberation Army who many in the West would prolly label terrorists for the war crimes they done committed and for havin child soldiers in their ranks, they wasn't trained by the Dutch or anyone else in the West they primarily came from the official Sudanese Army.The south of the Sudan police n military forces have been trained/are getting trained by the Dutch police force and others, the president of the South is well known for pro bush/america mentality. The south of the sudan is monitored to say the least by Dutch and other western governments/companies. This is no secret, the country doesn't even have 40 miles of highway, it is in construction and Dutch goverment institutes and churches are helping the South in it's 'construction'....
I don;t see that superstate happening at all and with all the uprisings/revolutions etc in the region, the African Union/Maghrib Union/Arab Liga etc everything related to government policies and such is changing over there.
The East African Federation is already happenin they gettin they own currency and all parties have agreed to federate into a single state by 2013, but yeah wit all them wild ass ? involved there's gon be alot of bloodshed to come. *Bart Scott voice* Can't Wait!
The Arab Maghreb Union is more likely to happen now that these uprisins are goin down cause the cats comin into power have alot of the same views, and the Muslim Brotherhood is behind most of the movements in these countries it ain't all just random so once they get ahold of ? they gon push for the union. -
Stack Money wrote: »Thats cause Gaddafi was a Pan-Arabist.
SMH @ you hatin on the Muslims. Most North Africans realize black Africans are their people too since they got alot of black Africans in their countries, blacks in America came from all over Africa so to say them ? ain't your people cause they ain't "black" is just stupid.
Definitely not the Muslim majority ones.
Most of the military in South Sudan is made up of the Sudan People's Liberation Army who many in the West would prolly label terrorists for the war crimes they done committed and for havin child soldiers in their ranks, they wasn't trained by the Dutch or anyone else in the West they primarily came from the official Sudanese Army.
The East African Federation is already happenin they gettin they own currency and all parties have agreed to federate into a single state by 2013, but yeah wit all them wild ass ? involved there's gon be alot of bloodshed to come. *Bart Scott voice* Can't Wait!
The Arab Maghreb Union is more likely to happen now that the se uprisins are goin down cause the cats comin into power have alot of the same views, and the Muslim Brotherhood is behind most of the movements in these countries it ain't all just random so once they get ahold of ? they gon push for the union.
So you gonna pretend that the US didn't appeal for 4200 UN peacekeapers (of Etiopian descent, just like the US/UN had collaborations with Etiopia against Somalia etc?) to the extremely oil rich part of Sudan Abyei? and that the UN voted in favour of that appeal? You gonna pretend that that didn't all happen 2 and that the west has nothing to do with the construction of South Sudan lol You also gonna pretend that the UNDP Sudan doesn't exist? How about the UNMIS?
How about the Agnes van Ardenne 22 company delegation last month in the Juba area? You know those dudes that plan to build 10.000 km paved roads to Uganda in the next several years?
is this all ? >?
he United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) has three main objectives in Southern Sudan with regards to security sector reform; police training, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR)* and supporting the Rule of Law. On 24 March 2005, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1590 (2005) which stated that the UN shall assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (UNDDR) of Southern Sudan. In addition to DDR oversight responsibilities, the U.N. has deployed 10,051 total uniformed personnel, including 8,803 troops, 596 military observers, and 652 police (CIVPOL); supported by 865 international civilian personnel, 2,580 local civilian, and 257 United Nations volunteers; with a total operating budget USD 887.33 million from 1 July 2007 - 30 June 2008. U.N.'s CIVPOL is dedicated to monitoring the work of the Sudanese police and, where possible, advising them about modern policing methods. (Please see Southern Sudan LE International for further information)
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is currently instituting three major programs geared towards building the law enforcement and administration of justice sector. The Police and Prisons Support sponsored by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) project will attempt to build infrastructure, train officials, and create regulations and rules for officials to maintain and follow. A previous project, known as the "Foundational Support to Southern Sudan Police Service" implemented by the UNDP and funded by the Netherlands, the UK, and was successful in establishing police training sites and training the police across Southern Sudan. (Please see Southern Sudan LE Strategies for further information)
The UNDP is currently in the middle of two capacity building programs in the administration of justice sector. The "Promoting Access to Justice and Fostering a Culture of Human Rights in Southern Sudan" project's main objective is to create rights awareness at the local levels and build the capacity of the Human Rights Commission. The "Institutional Support to the Judiciary of Southern Sudan project's main focus is to provide technical advice, train judges, and rehabilitate infrastructure ." These two programs will end in March 2008 and December 2009 respectively. Despite these programs, the Judiciary of Southern Sudan (JoSS) still lacks basic infrastructure, support staff, and qualified judges trained in common law and the English language. Despite the fact that no projects are planned for the near future, the rule of law program will continue to run well beyond 2009. (Please see Southern Sudan AOJ international for further information)
The Police and Prisons Support sponsored by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) project is one such program that will attempt to build infrastructure, train officials, and create regulations and rules for officials to maintain and follow. A previous project, known as the "Foundational Support to Southern Sudan Police Service" implemented by the UNDP and funded by the Netherlands, the UK, and the UNDP, was successful in establishing police training sites and training the police across Southern Sudan. (Please see Southern Sudan LE strategies for further information)
Of the over USD 4 billion pledged to Southern Sudanese reconstruction in 2005, international donors gave over USD 500 million to the World Bank administered multi-donor trust fund (MDTF). The World Bank’s MDTF operational strategy is to be a central partner of the GoSS in all the key sectors. Overall, the MDTF has committed USD 64 million U.S. of the projected USD 527.4 million U.S. over the next 5 years for projects relating to its overall operational strategy. (Please see Southern Sudan LE international for further information)
You cats thinking the 'west' ain't got ? to do with the reconstruction of Southern Sudan (98% of the income of South Sudan is OIL son) need to wake up man. -
SMH @ you hatin on the Muslims. Most North Africans realize black Africans are their people too since they got alot of black Africans in their countries, blacks in America came from all over Africa so to say them ? ain't your people cause they ain't "black" is just stupid.
In my opinion, to claim that North African Arabs and Berbers share a common identity with indigenous sub-saharan Africans just because they live on the same continent is meaningless, you might as well lump Alaskans in with Costa Ricans or Norwegians with Koreans. I don't know how it's relevant, but I don't think any Arabs or Berbers were taken during the Atlantic slave trade (http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/bl-slavery-stats4.htm). I never said North African Berbers/Arabs have nothing in common with Black Africans because they aren't Black (Melanesians are racially Black, I don't know how culturally similar they are to Africans, but they don't share a common ethnic heritage with us since they aren't of 'recent' African origin, they descend from prehistoric Africans, like Japanese and Scottish people do, but not Africans from groups culturally related to people still in SSA), they are culturally and politically a part of the Middle East.I totally disagree with your premise -- IMO conflict in tribal societies can never achieve the absolute scale of civilized warfare & OUR soldiers aren't trained to fight in these type of conflicts. We don't belong in Africa or any country for that matter that has such tribal conflicts in there history.
I'm so ? tired of our country going into these uncivilized countries,especially those with black savages who slaughter the very hand that comes to help them,while others sit silently in fear of those same tribal entities that ? our soldiers. Mother ? never can get along there ALWAYS fighting over one thing or another......same DAMN tribal mentality exists in the entire Middle East...ALWAYS fighting. edit below - why can't they settle their differences like these folks
Why are ethnic conflicts in sub-saharan African countries considered "tribal" disputes, as though Africans shared one monolithic culture, but everyone acknowledges that Russians and Italians are culturally and ethnically different people? The Dinka of southern Sudan and the Zulu of South Africa share cultural similarities and a pan-African heritage but they're culturally and ethnically distinct as well, they don't even speak related languages. There are many, many differences between Yoruba people in Nigeria and Benin, Bemba people in Zambia, Hausa people in Niger, Somali people in the Horn etc.
I don't think that Americans do or do not 'belong' in African countries, I don't necessarily want or don't want them intervening in African affairs, I just don't think that they would, generally, be mistreated or rejected by the local people. Americans might generally have a negative perception of Africans but beyond maybe being arrogant, the reverse isn't generally true, I don't think so. Besides Somalia, when have American soldiers been mistreated in SSA (I'm not being rhetorical)?our langueges/traditions etc over there are much more alike than with the rest of what you call 'sub sahara africa'.
Aren't the Berber languages confined mostly to the Maghreb? Neither Arabic nor Berber languages are spoken as mother tongues in Niger, Mali, southern Sudan, Somalia etc.also huruma you talk about black unity not realizing that A: there are many blacks in Northern Africa
I don't talk about 'Black' unity, I'm interested in Black African unity. I'm not opposed to pan-Black racial unity but I don't advocate it either, I don't think it's practical because it undermines ethnic and cultural differences between Africans, Black Americans, Black West Indians etc. You could accuse me of doing the same thing with Africans so I admit that it's relative, a Wolof person from Senegal has little in common with a Shona person from Zimbabwe until you compare them to Nubians in Egypt or Sudan, Nubians have little in common with Wolof or Shona people until you compare all of them to Chinese people and it goes on. When I say that I consider myself to be a 'pan-Africanist', I'm referring to an attitude I have about other African people and not an official agenda I have or a goal I think is desirable (like a United States of Africa), unless you mean eradicating poverty, disease, patriarchy, corruption and other political/economic/social problems in SSA but those are moral problems and should be fixed everywhere . I don't care if other Africans identify as 'African', if Igbo people in Nigeria would be better off forming their own separate Biafran state, I wouldn't necessarily oppose that despite my considering Igbo and non-Igbo speaking Nigerians to be brothers and sisters. I know that there are Berber speaking Blacks in North Africa but they are a minority, they most likely have SSA ancestry, according to DNA testing., B: Mauritania is a mostly black nation but it isn't in the 'sub sahara'
I'm not being literal when I use the term 'sub-saharan' Africa, I'm referring to countries populated mostly by non-Arabs and non-Berbers. -
We all know the US comin for that oil but they ain't gon be able to just go in and take it the way they doin in Iraq, South Sudan even more unstable and the entire government is run by the militia, throw in the country prolly joinin the East African Federation and all the factions involved there who damn sure won't let anyone highjack they ? and the US gon be dead on that oil.So you gonna pretend that the US didn't appeal for 4200 UN peacekeapers (of Etiopian descent, just like the US/UN had collaborations with Etiopia against Somalia etc?) to the extremely oil rich part of Sudan Abyei? and that the UN voted in favour of that appeal? You gonna pretend that that didn't all happen 2 and that the west has nothing to do with the construction of South Sudan lol You also gonna pretend that the UNDP Sudan doesn't exist? How about the UNMIS?
How about the Agnes van Ardenne 22 company delegation last month in the Juba area? You know those dudes that plan to build 10.000 km paved roads to Uganda in the next several years?
is this all ? >?
he United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) has three main objectives in Southern Sudan with regards to security sector reform; police training, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR)* and supporting the Rule of Law. On 24 March 2005, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1590 (2005) which stated that the UN shall assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (UNDDR) of Southern Sudan. In addition to DDR oversight responsibilities, the U.N. has deployed 10,051 total uniformed personnel, including 8,803 troops, 596 military observers, and 652 police (CIVPOL); supported by 865 international civilian personnel, 2,580 local civilian, and 257 United Nations volunteers; with a total operating budget USD 887.33 million from 1 July 2007 - 30 June 2008. U.N.'s CIVPOL is dedicated to monitoring the work of the Sudanese police and, where possible, advising them about modern policing methods. (Please see Southern Sudan LE International for further information)
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is currently instituting three major programs geared towards building the law enforcement and administration of justice sector. The Police and Prisons Support sponsored by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) project will attempt to build infrastructure, train officials, and create regulations and rules for officials to maintain and follow. A previous project, known as the "Foundational Support to Southern Sudan Police Service" implemented by the UNDP and funded by the Netherlands, the UK, and was successful in establishing police training sites and training the police across Southern Sudan. (Please see Southern Sudan LE Strategies for further information)
The UNDP is currently in the middle of two capacity building programs in the administration of justice sector. The "Promoting Access to Justice and Fostering a Culture of Human Rights in Southern Sudan" project's main objective is to create rights awareness at the local levels and build the capacity of the Human Rights Commission. The "Institutional Support to the Judiciary of Southern Sudan project's main focus is to provide technical advice, train judges, and rehabilitate infrastructure ." These two programs will end in March 2008 and December 2009 respectively. Despite these programs, the Judiciary of Southern Sudan (JoSS) still lacks basic infrastructure, support staff, and qualified judges trained in common law and the English language. Despite the fact that no projects are planned for the near future, the rule of law program will continue to run well beyond 2009. (Please see Southern Sudan AOJ international for further information)
The Police and Prisons Support sponsored by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) project is one such program that will attempt to build infrastructure, train officials, and create regulations and rules for officials to maintain and follow. A previous project, known as the "Foundational Support to Southern Sudan Police Service" implemented by the UNDP and funded by the Netherlands, the UK, and the UNDP, was successful in establishing police training sites and training the police across Southern Sudan. (Please see Southern Sudan LE strategies for further information)
Of the over USD 4 billion pledged to Southern Sudanese reconstruction in 2005, international donors gave over USD 500 million to the World Bank administered multi-donor trust fund (MDTF). The World Bank’s MDTF operational strategy is to be a central partner of the GoSS in all the key sectors. Overall, the MDTF has committed USD 64 million U.S. of the projected USD 527.4 million U.S. over the next 5 years for projects relating to its overall operational strategy. (Please see Southern Sudan LE international for further information)
You cats thinking the 'west' ain't got ? to do with the reconstruction of Southern Sudan (98% of the income of South Sudan is OIL son) need to wake up man.In my opinion, to claim that North African Arabs and Berbers share a common identity with indigenous sub-saharan Africans just because they live on the same continent is meaningless, you might as well lump Alaskans in with Costa Ricans or Norwegians with Koreans. I don't know how it's relevant, but I don't think any Arabs or Berbers were taken during the Atlantic slave trade (http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/bl-slavery-stats4.htm). I never said North African Berbers/Arabs have nothing in common with Black Africans because they aren't Black (Melanesians are racially Black, I don't know how culturally similar they are to Africans, but they don't share a common ethnic heritage with us since they aren't of 'recent' African origin, they descend from prehistoric Africans, like Japanese and Scottish people do, but not Africans from groups culturally related to people still in SSA), they are culturally and politically a part of the Middle East.
Alaska ain't on the same continent as Costa Rica and Norway ain't on the same continent as Korea, and none of those places have large populations of the other so I don't know where that analogy came from. All them African countries are culturally mixed, North Africa got ethnic groups from Sub-Saharan Africa and vise versa thats why they have ? in common cause they share the same nationality. -
yeah I hope your right stack money, guess I've become a lil bit 2 pessimistic, damn united nations ruined a lot of childhood dreams for me lol.
-
actually, they're both in North America, since most people consider Panama the southern-most end. if you want to be technical, some cut it off after Mexico, but it would basically be valid to consider both countries on the same continent... especially since it can also be said that North and South America might be called one continent.Stack Money wrote: »Alaska ain't on the same continent as Costa Rica
yeah, it's Eurasia.Stack Money wrote: »...and Norway ain't on the same continent as Korea -
Yeah technically you right its all North America.actually, they're both in North America, since most people consider Panama the southern-most end.yeah, it's Eurasia.
-
we're really claiming they're different continents?Stack Money wrote: » -
Europe and Asia technically are two different continents, Eurasia ain't an official continent just like America (North and South combined) and Afro-Eurasia ain't official.we're really claiming they're different continents? -
Stack Money wrote: »Europe and Asia technically are two different continents, Eurasia ain't an official continent just like America (North and South combined) and Afro-Eurasia ain't official.
Geographically speaking, Eurasia is one continent. The distinction between Europe and Asia is political, like the distinction between sub-saharan Africa and North Africa is also political. -
actually, if you want to be TECHNICAL... Eurasia is a single continent.Stack Money wrote: »Europe and Asia technically are two different continents. -
Geographically speaking, Eurasia is one continent. The distinction between Europe and Asia is political, like the distinction between sub-saharan Africa and North Africa is also political.actually, if you want to be TECHNICAL... Eurasia is a single continent.
The continents are, from largest to smallest: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Oceania (sometimes called Australia).
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/continent/?ar_a=1&ar_r=3
Smarten up -
start by telling me where Europe and Asia are divided and how. also, let me quote from your link:Stack Money wrote: »Smarten up
so, let's review:“Continent” has more than just a physical definition. To human geographers, the term is about culture. The continents of Europe and Asia, for example, are actually part of a single, enormous piece of land called Eurasia. But linguistically and ethnically, the areas of Asia and Europe are distinct. The various cultural groups of Europe have more in common with one another than they do with cultural groups in Asia. Because of this, most geographers divide Eurasia into Europe and Asia. An imaginary line, running from the northern Ural Mountains in Russia south to the Caspian and Black Seas, separates Europe, to the west, from Asia, to the east.
-Eurasia is a single piece of land;
-this distinction is made by human geographers for reasons of language and culture.
let me repeat: if you want to be TECHNICAL... Eurasia is a single continent. -
start by telling me where Europe and Asia are divided and how. also, let me quote from your link:
so, let's review:
-Eurasia is a single piece of land;
-this distinction is made by human geographers for reasons of language and culture.
let me repeat: if you want to be TECHNICAL... Eurasia is a single continent.
"Eurasia" is a single piece of land but technically they two different continents, goin by your definition Afro-Eurasia would be the continent since Saudi Arabia and Spain connect Africa to Eurasia. Just cause they on the same land mass don't automatically make them a continent, just like countries that ain't on the mainland of a certain continent are still considered part of that continent (like Madagascar and Indonesia). There's many different definitions for the continents but technically those two are separate, thats why in grade school they teach you the official definition of 7 continents wit Europe and Asia bein separate. -
no, TECHNICALLY they are not. you have to come up with an arbitrary boundary based on cultural reasons to separate them.Stack Money wrote: »"Eurasia" is a single piece of land but technically they two different continents
this is some people's definition of the continent, yes, although they can at least point to breaks between them (if only man-made ones). but since you're arguing against this being allowed, i don't know why you'd run with it.Stack Money wrote: »-goin by your definition Afro-Eurasia would be the continent since Saudi Arabia and Spain connect Africa to Eurasia.
so let me see if i understand your argument: there are many different definitions of continent ... but mine can't be correct because you don't agree with it?Stack Money wrote: »Just cause they on the same land mass don't automatically make them a continent, just like countries that ain't on the mainland of a certain continent are still considered part of that continent (like Madagascar and Indonesia). There's many different definitions for the continents but technically those two are separate, thats why in grade school they teach you the official definition of 7 continents wit Europe and Asia bein separate.
technically, they're NOT separate. that's the whole point of discussing the fact that they are LITERALLY connected. -
well paraphrased.Isn't that what President Obama's real agenda is all about? (aka) Transforming America -- SERIOUSLY what other race could actually pull that off? you and most realize NO black man can ever be questioned about his competence? just cram it down the folks throats & STFUP. -
"Technically" they are accordin to the official definition.no, TECHNICALLY they are not. you have to come up with an arbitrary boundary based on cultural reasons to separate them.
I wasn't runnin wit it I was usin your definition to show that even by that logic the continent would be Afro-Eurasia.this is some people's definition of the continent, yes, although they can at least point to breaks between them (if only man-made ones). but since you're arguing against this being allowed, i don't know why you'd run with it.
Yours ain't correct cause its not the OFFICIAL definition that people use which is taught to you in grade school, just cause they connected don't automatically make them an official continent just like some countries that aren't connected to the mainland continent are still considered part of that continent like I said before.so let me see if i understand your argument: there are many different definitions of continent ... but mine can't be correct because you don't agree with it?
technically, they're NOT separate. that's the whole point of discussing the fact that they are LITERALLY connected. -
again... no. there is no "official definition" that states Europe and Asia are distinct continents. the best you're going to do is a definition that ALSO allows for calling them that.Stack Money wrote: »"Technically" they are accordin to the official definition.
and my point is that this would be more logical than claiming they're distinct continents.Stack Money wrote: »I wasn't runnin wit it I was usin your definition to show that even by that logic the continent would be Afro-Eurasia.
you know, when i was in grade school, Pluto was also officially a planet. so we're saying that once you learn something in grade school, it's NEVER going to be considered incorrect?Stack Money wrote: »Yours ain't correct cause its not the OFFICIAL definition that people use which is taught to you in grade school-
see, again, this argument of "things are connected to continents by, say, continental shelves" is not an argument for calling Europe and Asia separate. it's an argument FOR Eurasia.Stack Money wrote: »...just like some countries that aren't connected to the mainland continent are still considered part of that continent like I said before. -
Whatever definition the entire world goes by is "official" since it's what's used by every nation for all kinds of political reasons and is also the same one you're taught in school. You one of them overly technical ? thats gon try and rebel usin a different definition from errbody else claimin you right when you really just look silly to people. Kinda like those muhfuckas that wanna get technical and say 2001 was the start of the new millennium and 2011 was the new decade, errbody thought they was dumb too cause no one goes by that ? .again... no. there is no "official definition" that states Europe and Asia are distinct continents. the best you're going to do is a definition that ALSO allows for calling them that.
I'm not "claimin" they distinct continents I'm tellin you they are accordin to your education and everyone in the world.and my point is that this would be more logical than claiming they're distinct continents.
It's not considered incorrect now so that Pluto comparison is merely based on a hypothetical situation where errbody starts to use your definition. You musta just said ? your teachers when you learned this ? in grade school, ol "Ima put Eurasia as the continent for Denmark when the correct answer in the test is Europe" ass ? .you know, when i was in grade school, Pluto was also officially a planet. so we're saying that once you learn something in grade school, it's NEVER going to be considered incorrect?
Thats your argument, all the countries that are considered part of a continent even tho they not connected to it are arguments for callin Europe and Asia separate.see, again, this argument of "things are connected to continents by, say, continental shelves" is not an argument for calling Europe and Asia separate. it's an argument FOR Eurasia.
This discussion has been closed.