The main culprit of poverty in Africa (and other countries) is the widespread corruption. It's the destroyer of all entrepreneurial and business activity in those countries. Any business is continuously being robbed, ransomed and conned into paying "protection" money by gangs and law enforcement alike. In addition the civil servants demand payment for the most trivial licenses you need to operate your business. These all add up and make any business unprofitable because you cannot pass on those costs to customers.
To combat corruption these countries need to educate their population of its effects plus hefty penalties, including capital punishment, to get it under control. The higher up the tree the more severe the punishment should be. Politicians and senior civil servants should always be put to death since their corruption has the greatest impact.
I read that theory multiple times, and on the surface it makes sense, e. g. corrupt oligarchs siphoning away money. But there are countries in Africa not governed by a dictatorship; I think a small country in west/middle Africa led by a woman some years ago. And they still found it close to impossible to break out of the poverty circle. You also can not easily compete with richer countries - they pump more money into their production while also swarming the local market with somewhat semi-affordable stuff that gets subvention from home. You need to re-think the local economy first and foremost and fix that. Granted, that's harder when dictators seize power, getting their weapons from outside factors, but I think it is possible to solve that problem too.
I am glad that this topic gets more attention, but the article itself doesn't provide any real analysis and could use some proof-reading. In its current shape, it's borderline engagement farming.
Wars are expensive, and the money has to come from somewhere:
> Lots of countries — including Egypt (the Nile/wider Red Sea supremacy), Eritrea (Ethiopia’s desire for access to the sea), Sudan (Ethiopian support for the RSF), Somalia (historical enmity/Ethiopian support for Somaliland), and Saudi Arabia (as benefactor of Egypt/Sudan/Eritrea axis) — have good reasons to keep Addis Ababa weak and preoccupied with unending domestic wars. These dynamics, coupled with the geography of war in Ethiopia mean that Addis Ababa will struggle to keep arms and fighters from easily moving across its borders with Sudan and Eritrea.
> On its part, the Ethiopian state will likely continue to enjoy support from the United Arab Emirates; and maintain the capacity to produce the weapons needed to keep rebels at bay. Ominously, divisions among elites in Tigray and other regions mean that the rebellion may not clear the threshold needed to incentivize a quick resolution either militarily or at the negotiating table. Therefore, slow-burning, but still catastrophically deadly conflicts may be on the cards.
> …
> Notably, a prolonged conflict will likely also be significantly civilianized. Careful to avoid being overstretched, the Ethiopian state may decide to deputize regional militias and other violence entrepreneurs in its fights against subnational armed groups. To this end, it will lean heavily on divisions across armed groups and within the regional states that have witnessed rebellions.
Part of a unifying the nation will be convincing these players that they will do better with a peaceful, stable Ethiopia.
Both countries are not super-rich and some of the arabic countries constantly destabilize the area - we could see this in Sudan and elsewhere. Ask where all the various terrorist groups got high-quality weapons.
The war between Eritrea is Ethiopia is especially stupid. The main issue is access to the ocean/water which Ethiopia wants. Since it is the bigger country, it wants to bully its way through. Eritrea has only about 6 million people; Ethiopia has almost 140 million people. IMO there should be a diplomatic solution. Give Ethiopia access while not giving up land, negotiate payments (should be reasonable for both sides), invest into the corridor for both sides to profit. To me it seems as if Ethiopia has committed to the decision to wage war though. It's similar to Putin in that he committed to both genocide and expansion of land. Though Eritrea is really very small compared to Ethiopia; I don't see them being able to offset Ethiopia.
Seeing my home country at the top of Hacker News is surreal. While I'm glad it’s finally getting some coverage, watching this unfold feels almost hopeless. The previous war in Tigray cost an estimated 600,000 lives, and this new escalation threatens to be even bloodier. It’s heading toward a complete catastrophe
We give attention to things that deserve our attention, i.e., things that affect us. The war in Ethiopia scores very low on that list, to the point of almost complete irrelevance.
other conflicts that to don't have any significant effect get plenty of attention like Ukraine or Palestine. the Russian Ukrainian conflict does have some effect on Europe but Israel Palestine has no tangible effect on the West and people talk about it frequently.
A constant flow of USA taxpayer dollars, and German taxpayer euros, is the only reason Israel is still afloat. Continuing the war is the decision of US and German voters. Other western countries are also nominal supposed to be stopping their allies from doing this and aren't.
That’s one of the reasons COVID got to spread. People in the West saw it as “a Chinese issue”. Me included. And I work with Chinese people every day. I would see them in lockdown and still think it couldn’t possibly affect me.
Fortunately, multibillion dollar dams can't spread like COVID.
So there isn't one likely to draw global powers to my neighborhood to pit one group of people against another.
/s
Let's be honest man, there's just little chance at all that this issue affects your average San Fran tech guy. Let's not try to shame people because they don't pay attention to those kinds of issues. If you want people to know something about the issue, put it in your comment.
Calling inflation an inconvenience is certainly an opinion. How many people will die across the world because they have to choose between healthcare, food, and rent?
Really bad inflation is obviously a full human catastrophe.
The absolute meltdown post-COVID where we traded moderate inflation in exchange for not having the economy basically seize up was, for most people on HN, an inconvenience.
Inflation in mentioned above example was 3.4% year over year for a professional at the higher end of the income scale. In that case it is inconvenience.
I agree that higher level of inflation might be brutal.
They will eat, they will skip on rent and they will do what they can with healthcare (be that public or NGO healthcare initiatives, or the local "wise person")
"But won't they be evicted?" Is a question that has several answers, but none of which you expect
First worlders perception of how to deal with 3rd world problems are interesting
> the Tigray war in Ethiopia may have killed as many as 600k, yet it barely registered in our public conversation. The same goes for Sudan. Attention is a weird beast.
If there are no white people to blame on either side of the war, nobody cares. It's the same shit with so many conflicts.
"See? Trump isn't so bad, there is that war in Ethiopia"...
I'm sorry but your comment is pretty disingenuous. Some issues might sound like first world problems, but it's dishonest to try and juxtapose a comment about inflation and a bloody war... it doesn't make the former less relevant to the discussion within which it occurred.
People bully Japan for "not apologizing" for their crimes in WW2 and earlier, even though none of the people from back then are still alive. Has Europe ever "apologized" for the Opium Wars or anything really?
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. "
And the comment really had nothing to do with the article. Just a opinion shouted in to the room without backing up besides mentioning "random yt videos" as the source.
It's called the zeitgeist. A prevailing opinion or perception that creeps into everything, earned through momentum.
You may suppress it but you can't avoid it. It'd be like expecting people not to mention AI today on a topic related to any technology even if doesn't directly involve AI.
Like soapboxing "historical european meddling", right?
Cause while it is of course entirely possible that this really did occur to you fully independently over the years, it requires quite a bit of suspended disbelief to entertain, given how prominently this has been trending recently within certain political "fringes".
Just watch or read anything about the Congo: A country/region BIGGER than many European countries COMBINED, literally just handed over to a SINGLE European dude!
And not just Africa; I've been traveling around Asia recently, and whenever I think about catching up on any particular country, like 8 or 9 out of 10 times, guess what?
True, but... when they themselves say that they didn't read the article, and post a random opinion that is contrary to the article, then "maybe you should actually read it" is at least somewhat called for.
OP edited their comment. I think the original said something to the effect of "I didn't read it but I bet it says..."
At least, that was my understanding of the comment that I replied to. Normally I wouldn't say "Did you even read the article" when responding to a thought or opinion
Fights were probably smaller and between tribes and not two monolithic groups? Also not quite sure about Ethiopia but the weapons were probably less bangy and more stabby pre colonization?
Ethiopia has a brief Italian intervention but did not form part of a European empire. In fact, before the Communists got in under Mengistu, it was ruled by an Emperor
That’s a reductive take. It assumes African Christians only hold their faith because of colonizers and denies us our own agency. Ethiopia, for example, adopted Christianity as a state religion in the 4th century, long before European colonization. Millions of Africans choose their faith consciously
The lore of the church is fascinating, the story is that the line of Solomon came to Ethiopia by way of the Queen of Sheba, and the ark of the covenant made its way there. And that figures into Rastafarian beliefs.
"And they would be correct. Most people never "chose" their beliefs. It was systematically embedded by people who have had power over them." - nothing about this statement is isolated to modern discourse about European colonisation. It is sometimes true in other contexts and noted in those contexts. Although you can always argue about how systematic something is.
Where you are born and your ethnicity largely determines your beliefs, conversion is rare. But agency over ones beliefs is becoming more prevalent as religion holds less influence as it once did (at least in some parts of the world).
Not really, that's not how worldviews work. On top of that, religions and cults are very good at embedding themselves into your social/family life marrying leaving the religion with leaving or estranging a large part of social life.
At this point, it is indeed still a choice, but hardly a daily or conscious choice.
Renouncing/converting exists but is rare, life changing, and sometimes dangerous.
Yea, and in the face of violence agency is reduced or neutralized but that doesn’t make saying that activities of colonial powers that ended decades before most living people in the region were born gets rid of agency a defensible argument.
And that’s before unraveling whatever the OP of this comment chain meant by Muslims and Christians are only fighting because of colonizers when Islam and Christianity were colonial ideologies in the first place with there emphasis on converting all of humanity.
Threads attract people with an opinion about the topic, so it's more like HN contains lots of subsets of sensitive people waiting in the wings. But of course, per Marvin Gaye, we're all sensitive people.
Chinese can't fight themselves. So I'm pretty sure everyone is in on this one.
One side wants the dam gone.
The other wants the dam generating electricity.
Will be fascinating to see which group of puppet masters wins. It'll tell us a lot about how the global power hierarchies are shaping up in the twenty-first century.
I do feel horrible for the innocent people of Ethiopia, who only wanted lights so their kids could study at night. Instead, they'll get killed. That's what sucks about the activity of global powers in Africa for the past, what? 500 years? Probably longer.
To be fair to HN, I mean, your comment kind of indicates your own political sensitivity as well right?
I, personally, don't mind political content. I find it interesting. That said, I'm not going to get on fellow HN'ers when they downvote or flag it. That, in and of itself, would be a political act rooted in sensitivities.
If you have reasons, in particular, that posts or comments should not be flagged, I'd personally encourage you to outline them. Then let the chips fall where they may. Getting emotional only decreases the overall quality of the conversation. And, presumably, outlining your own ideas would get whatever viewpoint it is that you wish to push, into the thread.
To combat corruption these countries need to educate their population of its effects plus hefty penalties, including capital punishment, to get it under control. The higher up the tree the more severe the punishment should be. Politicians and senior civil servants should always be put to death since their corruption has the greatest impact.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum
> Lots of countries — including Egypt (the Nile/wider Red Sea supremacy), Eritrea (Ethiopia’s desire for access to the sea), Sudan (Ethiopian support for the RSF), Somalia (historical enmity/Ethiopian support for Somaliland), and Saudi Arabia (as benefactor of Egypt/Sudan/Eritrea axis) — have good reasons to keep Addis Ababa weak and preoccupied with unending domestic wars. These dynamics, coupled with the geography of war in Ethiopia mean that Addis Ababa will struggle to keep arms and fighters from easily moving across its borders with Sudan and Eritrea.
> On its part, the Ethiopian state will likely continue to enjoy support from the United Arab Emirates; and maintain the capacity to produce the weapons needed to keep rebels at bay. Ominously, divisions among elites in Tigray and other regions mean that the rebellion may not clear the threshold needed to incentivize a quick resolution either militarily or at the negotiating table. Therefore, slow-burning, but still catastrophically deadly conflicts may be on the cards.
> …
> Notably, a prolonged conflict will likely also be significantly civilianized. Careful to avoid being overstretched, the Ethiopian state may decide to deputize regional militias and other violence entrepreneurs in its fights against subnational armed groups. To this end, it will lean heavily on divisions across armed groups and within the regional states that have witnessed rebellions.
Part of a unifying the nation will be convincing these players that they will do better with a peaceful, stable Ethiopia.
The war between Eritrea is Ethiopia is especially stupid. The main issue is access to the ocean/water which Ethiopia wants. Since it is the bigger country, it wants to bully its way through. Eritrea has only about 6 million people; Ethiopia has almost 140 million people. IMO there should be a diplomatic solution. Give Ethiopia access while not giving up land, negotiate payments (should be reasonable for both sides), invest into the corridor for both sides to profit. To me it seems as if Ethiopia has committed to the decision to wage war though. It's similar to Putin in that he committed to both genocide and expansion of land. Though Eritrea is really very small compared to Ethiopia; I don't see them being able to offset Ethiopia.
It looks like attention is only given if there is a specific actor in any conflict...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49905487
Meanwhile, the Tigray war in Ethiopia may have killed as many as 600k, yet it barely registered in our public conversation. The same goes for Sudan.
Attention is a weird beast.
Not nice, but somewhat rational? Inflation where you live affects you directly. A massacre somewhere far away usually not so much.
(But yes, all is connected, people fleeing the wars, then bringing their traumatas with them, etc)
And then… well.
Attention is indeed weird.
So there isn't one likely to draw global powers to my neighborhood to pit one group of people against another.
/s
Let's be honest man, there's just little chance at all that this issue affects your average San Fran tech guy. Let's not try to shame people because they don't pay attention to those kinds of issues. If you want people to know something about the issue, put it in your comment.
Educate.
The absolute meltdown post-COVID where we traded moderate inflation in exchange for not having the economy basically seize up was, for most people on HN, an inconvenience.
I agree that higher level of inflation might be brutal.
"But won't they be evicted?" Is a question that has several answers, but none of which you expect
First worlders perception of how to deal with 3rd world problems are interesting
If there are no white people to blame on either side of the war, nobody cares. It's the same shit with so many conflicts.
Correction: The mass media serving a select few interests is a weird beast.
..well not really weird if you recognize it that way :)
I'm sorry but your comment is pretty disingenuous. Some issues might sound like first world problems, but it's dishonest to try and juxtapose a comment about inflation and a bloody war... it doesn't make the former less relevant to the discussion within which it occurred.
Imagine the shit we're gonna see in 2100 caused from that..
But then that too could be arguably traced back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
People bully Japan for "not apologizing" for their crimes in WW2 and earlier, even though none of the people from back then are still alive. Has Europe ever "apologized" for the Opium Wars or anything really?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. "
And the comment really had nothing to do with the article. Just a opinion shouted in to the room without backing up besides mentioning "random yt videos" as the source.
You may suppress it but you can't avoid it. It'd be like expecting people not to mention AI today on a topic related to any technology even if doesn't directly involve AI.
Cause while it is of course entirely possible that this really did occur to you fully independently over the years, it requires quite a bit of suspended disbelief to entertain, given how prominently this has been trending recently within certain political "fringes".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYRifKrS24 — The World's Most Ignored War Explained - Johnny Harris (first and only video I watched from that guy, seems neutral?)
And not just Africa; I've been traveling around Asia recently, and whenever I think about catching up on any particular country, like 8 or 9 out of 10 times, guess what?
Yep. Europeans :)
At least, that was my understanding of the comment that I replied to. Normally I wouldn't say "Did you even read the article" when responding to a thought or opinion
But I think, the article does have the potential for a interesting debate, though.
Sure Italy certainly wanted to colonize Ethiopia, but they were driven out with the help of the British before they could.
There’s broad acceptance that Ethiopia is an uncolonized country.
Come on.
That is European colonization, possibly the most effective form.
And they would be correct. Most people never "chose" their beliefs. It was systematically embedded by people who have had power over them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum#Religion
People have agency.
At this point, it is indeed still a choice, but hardly a daily or conscious choice.
Renouncing/converting exists but is rare, life changing, and sometimes dangerous.
And that’s before unraveling whatever the OP of this comment chain meant by Muslims and Christians are only fighting because of colonizers when Islam and Christianity were colonial ideologies in the first place with there emphasis on converting all of humanity.
Chinese can't fight themselves. So I'm pretty sure everyone is in on this one.
One side wants the dam gone.
The other wants the dam generating electricity.
Will be fascinating to see which group of puppet masters wins. It'll tell us a lot about how the global power hierarchies are shaping up in the twenty-first century.
I do feel horrible for the innocent people of Ethiopia, who only wanted lights so their kids could study at night. Instead, they'll get killed. That's what sucks about the activity of global powers in Africa for the past, what? 500 years? Probably longer.
I, personally, don't mind political content. I find it interesting. That said, I'm not going to get on fellow HN'ers when they downvote or flag it. That, in and of itself, would be a political act rooted in sensitivities.
If you have reasons, in particular, that posts or comments should not be flagged, I'd personally encourage you to outline them. Then let the chips fall where they may. Getting emotional only decreases the overall quality of the conversation. And, presumably, outlining your own ideas would get whatever viewpoint it is that you wish to push, into the thread.