Africa over the last half a century has been really distancing itself from nations around the world as far as being undeveloped and not having a government to keep them up to date or at least in good shape. In this article about Zimbabwe the author makes it clear that what he thinks is causing these countries in Africa to be impoverished is their corrupt governments. He feels that all the major countries in Africa that are doing fine such as Rwanda and Botswana is because of their government and their ability to adapt and give the people what is needed to have a good economy or society. These other countries need to pick up democracy or some type reformat in their government that will allow them to prosper and better themselves and get caught up with the rest of the world. As Amy Chua would say is that democracy is definitely an option but it will not necessarily fix all their problems. In my opinion it is definitely the governments that need to be reformed because even if Ngo’s do provide the proper funding to allow these countries to reform their governments and ultimately their nations it is not guaranteed that the money will reach the people or if the money will go to cause that its meant for, government reformation. A good previous opinion or article that we are all informed with are that of Singers ideals that solving problems for countries r poverty at the very least is through NGO’s or Andrew Kuper’s where he explains that it’s not in the NGO’s but the government and their surrounding economies in order to prosper. It is for sure that these countries are falling further and further behind in technology and just up to date with themselves if these countries cannot even support or sustain themselves. Government reformation is very much needed to allow these countries to better themselves and on top of that democracy could be an option but it is never a concrete answer.
Amy Chua, in her article “A World on the Edge,” states that “It is ethnicity, however, that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility.” Amy Chua points out that ethnicity is one of the major factors of “conflict [that is] so terrifyingly difficult to understand and contain.” What Chua is referring to is the minority of ethnic groups that lives with the majority of a different ethnic group. For instance, Chua uses a real story of her aunt who is Filipino Chinese that lived in the Philippines and resided with native servant Filipinos. Chua’s dear aunt was killed by her own chauffeur because of her ethnicity and because she was filthy rich. Ironically, when I read “Postcard From Zimbabwe,” by Nicholas Kristof, I was surprised to hear that many Zimbabweans “said time and again that life had been better under the old, racists, white regime of what was then called Rhodesia.” One man told Kristof that they were extremely excited when the White Rhodesia stepped down and the Black Zimbabweans were in power, but, little that they know; their own people oppressed the citizens and left them with no food and no money. Because of ethnicity against the Whites, Zimbabweans overthrow them and now they are suffering from their own decision. What goes around, comes right back around. They have nobody to blame except for themselves. Now, every time they starve, sick, and dying, they will remember the consequences of racism. They took the Whites for granted and now there is no money for just basic necessities to survive. Kristof said that “Western countries have made the mistake of focusing their denunciations on the seizures of white farms by Mr. Mugabe’s cronies. That’s tribalism by whites; by far the greatest suffering has been endured by Zimbabwe’s blacks." By:Mary Mayout
Africa today is a continent that has experienced many problems with its people, government, and agriculture. Even though Africa has all these problems is there really a true solutions to all their problems they have? Personally no one knows but people can focus on one specific problem like the government. Zimbabwe a country in Africa formally known as Rhodesia has experienced many political problems in the past decade. Nicholas Kristof an American Journalist author of “Postcard From Zimbabwe” travels to Zimbabwe to interview villagers of the change that they have experienced with their new president named Robert Mugabe. However people started having second thoughts about Mugabe. For example, one of the villagers commented saying “it would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come.” The people of Zimbabwe thought it would of been better if their own ethnicity ruled them instead of another. In contrast Amy Chua claims that its ethnicity that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility. It’s definitely true that the people of Zimbabwe did not know what they were getting into. As a result of this kids were not able to attend school. Also mothers were not getting the medical attention needed for their babies that they were expecting. All this occurred just because they thought they could trust someone from their own ethnicity. Maybe its better if these countries have someone that pressures for democracy. However, Mugabe does not host elections for people to get their voices heard. Though on the other hand Amy would disagree because democracy is not the solution to countries problems. But honestly what else can we do to help these people in desperate need of help because from what I have read and heard about Mugabe, he sounds like a dictator not a president. Also if democracy is actually established in this location many people would be likely to have money and kids will be able to go to school to learn. Overall the change that Zimbabwe was expecting was not the one they got because now they are in a tough situation.
Kristof, in his New York Times article titled “On the Ground”, argues that the poverty and lack of development in Africa is caused by bad governance. He supports his argument by listing countries that have improved economically and socially under new governments. He also talks about how outside factors like colonialism are only small problems in comparison to the larger problem which is bad governance. While I do believe that Kristof is correct in saying that a good government will definitely improve the situation in African countries, I disagree with the premise that a good government is all these countries need in order to become developed nations. In Amy Chua’s article titled “A World on Edge”, she illustrates the complexity of globalization through the consequences of the expansion of free markets and democracy. While she would most likely agree with Kristof that good governments are needed, she would also point out that ethnic rivalries and other factors would need to be addressed first. The situation within each African country is unique, making it difficult to place new governments or democratic governments into power without disrupting the economic and social dynamics of each country. Chua claims that market –dominant minorities or the ethnic group in power must reform first before issues like poverty can be resolved. For the most part, I tend to agree with Chua because changing political structures can have drastic consequences when other factors are not taken into consideration. There is no easy solution as Chua points out, and the best way to understand issues like poverty in underdeveloped nations is to address all the factors (ethnic rivalries and governments) influencing the issues.
Before reading The New York Times article “Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty,” I scoped the page out and realized that the author was Nicholas D. Kristof, who wrote “Nicholas Kristof’s Advice for Saving the World” in our course reader. This gave me some background information on his stance and what this article I was about to read would entail. I also noticed the title inferred its main focus on Zimbabwe, one of the countries Amy Chua focuses on in her article about market dominant minorities in free market democracies was well. This article by Kristof claims that “Some people think colonialism is the central problem…the way certain ethnic groups were favored — all these left huge problems behind. In other words, ethnicity favoritism is a great problem standing in the way of a strong government in a country. This definitely correlates to the claims in “A World on Edge” by Amy Chua. She claims that ethnic minorities and majorities play a big role in a countries governments. In fact she describes an example in Zimbabwe as well. Native Zimbabweans, the impoverished majority, are backlashing against foreigners, the wealthy minorities. Although the minorities account for a very small percentage, they control over half of the countries best land. This causes tension between the two ethnic groups which in turn causes tension in governments. And having a bad governmental systems turns into areas of poverty. Poverty stricken areas are mostly made up of the ethnic majority causes resentment and hate towards ethnic minorities, leading back to the start again. It becomes a tragic cycle. We need to create equality and fix these problems. Like Kristof says, “The silver lining is that good governance is as contagious as bad governance.” It is possible to restore governments and make life better for the people, the majorities and minorities.
Nicholas Kristof's article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" from The New York Times examines what has happened since the oppressive white minority was overthrown three decades ago. The country underwent the change from being called Rhodesia to Zimbabwe as they are now ruled by a tiny black elite led by President Mugabe. The farms run by the white minority were "seized by Mugabe's cronies" which takes away from the job market in the country. Kristof claims that international pressure on Mugabe for free elections is necessary in order to free the country from the grasp of his oppressive regime. I believe that democracy would be effective in Zimbabwe because it would open up their market and give the people of the country the social freedom that they do not have not. Evidence of this can be found in Kristof's article when he reports on how the citizens of Zimbabwe are terrified of being identified in his writing. If Mugabe gives Zimbabwe free elections and other countries and NGOs aid Zimbabwe economically the country can return to the prosperity that it once had under the white regime.
In Kristof's New York Times Magazine article, "Postcard From Zimbabwe", he argues the problems with Zimbabwe's government and the president Robert Mugabe and the effects it has on the people. First it is clear that a certain minority can change the way a country is run and the effects of the people. Chua discusses the problems with wealthy minorities controlling the economy of a country such as the problems between her Chinese minority and the Filipinos majority. It was interesting that in this article, Kristof states that the people of Zimbabwe actually preferred the old, racist, white regime than the current black regime now controlling Zimbabwe's government through Mugabe. The white regime had not been a positive one for people of Zimbabwe so a controlling minority still has its problems but the type or ethnicity of the minority is critical. The black regime they had put in power ended up causing massive oppression for the Zimbabweans. However, at least the whites were wealthy and able to take care of their people providing them with jobs, food, and medicines, something they do not currently have under Mugabe. The previous wealthy minority benefited the Zimbabweans even though Chua believes the wealthy minorities create tension, but at least they were "competent". The way a country is run is also critically effected by the government. Clearly the government is very strict as Kristof had to be "undercover" and bring his family just to get information and be able to write about these problems. If Zimbabwe held free elections, as Kristof says, the people would have much more power and be able to fix the problems in this country, such as finally creating access to medicines and providing proper schoolings for the children. This refutes Chua's claim that a democracy would hurt a countries economy. In this case, all Zimbabweans need is a free election and democracy to be able to elect someone that would take care of their economy. All they would need to do is elect someone other than Mugabe who is currently destroying their economy. Kristof believes democracy would help this country, something Chua argues against, but it is clear through Kristof's evidence that perhaps democracy can help some countries.
Nicholas D. Kristof explains in the New York Times article, "Postcard from Zimbabwe", that the new government in Zimbabwe is far worse than the white government they used to have. In this government's rule they have no food, hardly enough education, and barely health supplies. According to Amy Chua's article "The World on Edge", she magnified that one of the ways that the nation would fight back to minority ruled markets or free markets is by hurting the nation itself. The nation in other words will seem more like a dictatorship, and loose the focus of helping the people in order to stop it from being abused from other wealthier nations. Zimbabwe's new government is making anything that the old white rulers owned to be forced out. This nation is trying to remove any ties to the old white government in order limit their influence, but in the process they are hurting their people. On the other hand Kristof believes that the other nations need to intervene and make Zimbabwe hold elections and become more democratic. This however can backfire because it will help the government in the long run, but it might cause even more problems right now. The existing government will want to resist the other nations, which means more problems for the people in Zimbabwe because they will receive less food, heath, and attention.
Africa for as long as I can remember has always been in poverty and had always needed the help of the United States or other countries in one way or another. In this article about Zimbabwe, Kristof claims the reason behind Africa's problems is because of its poor government system. In the article Kristof give examples of several countries that have been colonized within the past century that have been colonized and have not benefited from it. And according to Chua, ethnicity definitely affects a government and in this case it did exactly that. If different groups in their own and surrounding countries cannot get along then it develops more advanced problems for Africa. When countries begin to fight with one another there is no relation to one another and there is no compromise when dealing with issues like the government and how it's run. Kristof states, "The silver lining is that good governance is as contagious as bad governance'" meaning no government is permanent and there will be better ones than others. Even with help from others some countries are still struggling and when people see no progress in these places they begin to lost faith for progress in other countries. Zimbabwe can most certainly keep them from this and elect a leader worth living under if they really wanted to.
I found both of Kristof’s articles interesting. I agree most with him in the paragraph that says “it is clear that African countries can register enormous economic growth when they are well-governed… What distinguishes the fastest-growing economies in Africa, also including Rwanda, is simply their good governance. And what distinguishes the worst-performing countries tends to be a combination of bad governance and (often related) incessant conflict.” Another thing I found interesting about the first article is when he quotes a Zimbabwean that says, “it would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come.” Many cultural conflicts occur because of language barriers. (Think how certain Americans act when they see Spanish options at the ATM.) In Africa (and many parts of India,) there is violence between groups that speak different languages. In a way, Great Britain’s imperialism incorporated English into African, Indian, etc. culture, which has helped the masses communicate better. Imagine where Africa would be if there were 7 or 8 languages within one country. Also, the political atmosphere throughout Africa is very survival-of-the-fittest oriented, which can be attributed to its high level of corruption. z
Africa is one of the slowest developing nations's in the world. Some countries, such as Rwanda and Botswana are actually doing well but the majority of the rest of the countries are well below every other prospering nation. As Amy Chua stated, democracy wont necessarily help everyone out, but i believe in order for people to do well, they need structure. If America didnt have structure such as laws and prison time, many would be living in poverty and stealing in order to get by. Since we have a democracy and we are able to voice our opinions on things, we are the country other countries turn to in order to receive help when needed. Africa has been devastated with famine, corrupted government and many other boundaries that havent exactly given them the chance to prosper. Even though Chua claims democracy wont solve everything everytime, im sure there is nothing wrong with trying something new since the way people have been handling things before are not exactly helping them catch up with the rest of the world. Usually a government has zero compromise when it comes to certain things, and due to this many people have lost hope and decide to stay quiet. As long as people do not voice their opinions, nothing will be done and things will remain the same.
In his article "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African poverty", Nicholas Kristof writes that he believes if Africa (specifically Zimbabwe) were "well-governed" like Botswana, that they can "register enormous economic growth". Amy Chua, however, believes that "the spread of markets and democracy is a principal aggravating cause of group hatred and ethnic violence throughout the non-Western world", and though she would probably agree with him on his claim that "good governance is as contagious as bad governance" she would argue that their government should not be based on our American form of democracy. She would say that since Zimbabwe is ruled by Robert Mugabe who based his campaign for presidency over and over again on redirecting rule away from the white-minority by "[s]trik[ing] fear in the heart of the white man," if they were to have a democracy like ours the people of Zimbabwe would most likely still vote for him to be leader rather than Arthur Mutambara (who Kristof believes is a fine example for a future leader of the country) solely on the fact that Mugabe is considered the hero of Zimbabwe's black liberation movement. Chua would further argue that since there is a tension between an elite--economically-powerful ethnic minority and "numerically powerful impoverished majority" that the backlash between the two would hinder the help that a free-market and democracy run government would provide to that country. "It is ethnicity, however, that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility" is how Chua put her argument in her work "A World on Edge". So when Kristof says as "East Asia went quite quickly from disaster area to a center of global economic dynamism... it’s not impossible that the same could happen in Africa if it gets the kind of leaders it deserves", Chua would simply tell him to reconsider his claim with the fact that there is a ethnic tension within Zimbabwe and that it is not as simple as gaining a "right" leader...well, that I what I would say if I were Amy Chua.
Before reading the article by Nicholas Kristoff I began looking at the title and I remembered that Amy Chua also mentioned Zimbabwe. To be honest I didn’t know where Zimbabwe was, all I knew was that it was located in Africa. In the article called “Postcard from Zimbabwe” Nicholas Kristoff claims that the pressure that is put on Mugabe for free election is essential in order to free the country. In the article “A World on Edge” Amy Chua discusses the problems with wealthy minorities controlling the economy of a country such as the problems between her Chinese minority and the Filipinos majority. The way that the country is being ran is just hurting its citizens if they believe it or not. The government is very ruling and strict like its supposed to be, but its not fair and it hurting the country’s economy as well. In order for the citizens of Zimbabwe to be able to elect a new president or change the way things are right now is only if the citizens get a free election. Kristoff believes that democracy is good and that it would help Zimbabwe, but Chua does not. The citizens in Zimbabwe need to pull together so that they can elect a new leader and live better lives. This article was extremely interesting, even though I find Kristoff hard to read at times. I enjoyed reading his ideas, and in my opinion I think Kristoff is a very intelligent man.
Just as he does in his article, "Nicholas Kristof's Advice for Saving the World" Kristof claims in the article entitled, "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty" that the root of the problem, where poverty stems from, is political. In this article about Zimbabwe, he states his belief that "what distinguishes the worst-performing countries tends to be a combination of bad governance and (often related) incessant conflict." Amy Chua, in "A World on the Edge" also uses the example of Zimbabwe to display the destruction of their economy due to the irrationality of a political leader. She explains that Zimbabwe's economy took a "free fall" because President Robert Mugabe's "violent seizure of 10 million acres of white-owned commercial farmland." As Kuper speaks of the improvement in the economy of Botswana since their obtaining of good leadership, the irresponsibility of Mugabe's actions and unwise policies led to a crash in economy for the country. Therefore Chua and Kuper seem to be in agreement that the road to poverty relief begins with having a good government and wise leadership.
In the article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" Nicholas Kristof intterviewed some people ordinary people that lived in Zimbabwe, and the main response was how it seemed like everything was actually better back when the country was run under the old, racist white regime. When the country was called Rhosesia and the whites ruled the country, people explained how things were actually somewhat positive because money was actually being made. many were excited for the country to change but didn't realize that they would end up being oppressed. Kristof seems to make the point that President Robert Mugabe has brought about all of these negative things and that they should hold free elections to make a change there. Amy Chua would claim that even if there are changes made in the government, that's not neccesarily going to solve all of their problems. It could maybe temporarily solve their problems or help somewhat, but it wouldn't completely turn around their country. People are starving, dieing of sickness, and their life spans are shortening right in front of their eyes. This country needs to make some major changes in their government and President Mugabe needs to be replaced if they want to have any sort of hope to look foward to.
Elijah Auer said... It seems that Africa has big political problem. This problem hasn't been around forever, but its dictators have brought the country down in the past years. In "Postcard From Zimbabwe" Nicholas Kirstof claims that "today's nasty oppressive regime run by the tiny black elite that surrounds Mr. Mugabe." The country wanted to get rid of their old government of whites. They soon realized that even rulers of their own race can ruin the country economically. Kristof notes that Zimbabwe is a beautiful country, but its reputation is marred by the political and economic state of despair. Amy Chua states that the solution is that globalization of democracy will not solve their problems. She thinks that reformation needs to come but in other ways. Kristof counters this when he mentions his solution to Zimbabwe's problems. "The tragedy that has unfolded here can be reversed if Mr. Mugabe is obliged by international pressure." The international pressure must be towards free elections. These free elections will give the country freedom from the half century of devastation that they have been living in. This can go on no longer in Zimbabwe. They need to have change to their way of living. When i heard the story Kristof told about the mother that could not get medical help for her malaria. This is very disheartening to hear these tragedies. If only she had $2 to spend. Then she would have been cured from her life-threatening disease. People don't realize the difference of living in America vs other countries. Until you experience first hand like Kristof, you can't relate to their problems. I think that they should get rid of Mugabe and let the people decide on something for once. The people of Zimbabwe have no voice, and are losing their lives at a fast rate. Political reformation needs to come to save these stricken people from this terrible state.
Nicholas Kristof’s article in New York Times, “Postcard from Zimbabwe” explains the various forms of governments of Zimbabwe and their effects on the country. The past White “Rhodesia” government was replaced by a worse and far more oppressive Black-ruled government. Back when the Whites were in power, the Zimbabweans were extremely unhappy, and when a new president, Robert Mugabe, promised a Black-ruled regime, the Zimbabweans of course jumped at the chance. However, after becoming president, Mugabe and his Black elite have done nothing beneficial to the country. Kristof describes that the Zimbabweans preferred the old Rhodesian government. The Rhodesian government at least had a healthcare, education, and safety that was all dismantled when Mugabe rose to power. I can see that Mugabe probably does not want a government that is similar in any way to the Rhodesian government, but he is severely damaging Zimbabwe in the process. Kristof states that a good government could perhaps prevent many of these problems. I do agree that a better government can often improve the well-being of the people, like the Rhodesian government. However, as Chua states in “A World on Edge”, having a democratic government does not work for all countries, especially given the complexities of different countries. If Zimbabwe were to have a democracy, it would not guarantee the rights or the well-being of the people. A better government does need to be set up eventually, but Chua would assert that several issues would have to be addressed first, like the conflicts between ethnic groups.
Many areas of Africa are facing harsh situations and these ares far behind based on the norm of the world. The problems causing these harsh times include severe droughts, excessive poverty, and most importantly very corrupt governments. Before Zimbabwe the nation of Rhodesia was not so good so when it became Zimbabwe individuals were excited because they thought change would come but little did they know that the government would oppress them. The election brought about new leaders as well as severe poverty hurting the nation even more than it was hurting before. As Amy Chua states democracy will not fix all their problems and in the case of Zimbabwe it didnt just not fix them it made them worse. In the article "Post Card from Zimbabwe" a man who took a visit gives his review of the tings he saw and heard on his visit and all the things he tells come from individuals who lived in both Rhodesia and Zimbabwe and believe once the nation became a democracy everything became much worse. This just confirms what Amy Chua believes which is democracy is not for everyone. The US is a well established nation and a democracy seems to work very well but every constitution does not limit the power of the government as does that of the nation therefore making the idea a good one but not a very planned out one in all nations.
Kristof in his piece is saying that any country can become well off and that colonization is not the answer because place that have been colonized or not formally colonized are not so well off. He gives many example of neighboring countries that are very similar where one has been colonized and the other has not. He then goes on to say that the answer is the people in charge the governement and having the intelligent people to step up to do it. Like we had Thomas Jefferson along with many others. Counrties need people to step out of the crowd, focus on the problems, and go about coming up with a constitution to go about fixing it. After they come together to pick the country off the gound they can go from their and democracy get work from their as long as they come up with a great constitution to go with it.
Carlos Arroyo- Amy Chua, in her article “A World on the Edge,” states that “It is ethnicity, however, that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility.” Amy Chua explains that ethnicity is one of the major factors of conflict that is terrifyingly difficult to understand and contain.” What Chua is referring to is the minority of ethnic groups that lives with the majority of a different ethnic group. As I read the article on Zimbabwe I would have to say it is way worse then the Phillipenes. The author discribes that the education and helth security is bad children are not able to get an education because their parents are not able t afford it. A pregnant women was diagnosed with malaria and couldnt get any medical attention because she could not afford two dollars. Chua blames the differnce of ethnicity for the problems of poverty. Her aunt was killed by one of her aunt servants her chouffer to be exact and where she lives the Chinese are more wealthier then the Fillipinos and that was the reason she believes her aunt was murdered because of jeliousy from the Fillipino. In the article of Zimbabwe by Kristof he says if whites were still in control our world would not be in poverty and i do not agree with that.
21 comments:
Africa over the last half a century has been really distancing itself from nations around the world as far as being undeveloped and not having a government to keep them up to date or at least in good shape. In this article about Zimbabwe the author makes it clear that what he thinks is causing these countries in Africa to be impoverished is their corrupt governments. He feels that all the major countries in Africa that are doing fine such as Rwanda and Botswana is because of their government and their ability to adapt and give the people what is needed to have a good economy or society. These other countries need to pick up democracy or some type reformat in their government that will allow them to prosper and better themselves and get caught up with the rest of the world. As Amy Chua would say is that democracy is definitely an option but it will not necessarily fix all their problems. In my opinion it is definitely the governments that need to be reformed because even if Ngo’s do provide the proper funding to allow these countries to reform their governments and ultimately their nations it is not guaranteed that the money will reach the people or if the money will go to cause that its meant for, government reformation. A good previous opinion or article that we are all informed with are that of Singers ideals that solving problems for countries r poverty at the very least is through NGO’s or Andrew Kuper’s where he explains that it’s not in the NGO’s but the government and their surrounding economies in order to prosper. It is for sure that these countries are falling further and further behind in technology and just up to date with themselves if these countries cannot even support or sustain themselves. Government reformation is very much needed to allow these countries to better themselves and on top of that democracy could be an option but it is never a concrete answer.
Amy Chua, in her article “A World on the Edge,” states that “It is ethnicity, however, that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility.” Amy Chua points out that ethnicity is one of the major factors of “conflict [that is] so terrifyingly difficult to understand and contain.” What Chua is referring to is the minority of ethnic groups that lives with the majority of a different ethnic group. For instance, Chua uses a real story of her aunt who is Filipino Chinese that lived in the Philippines and resided with native servant Filipinos. Chua’s dear aunt was killed by her own chauffeur because of her ethnicity and because she was filthy rich. Ironically, when I read “Postcard From Zimbabwe,” by Nicholas Kristof, I was surprised to hear that many Zimbabweans “said time and again that life had been better under the old, racists, white regime of what was then called Rhodesia.” One man told Kristof that they were extremely excited when the White Rhodesia stepped down and the Black Zimbabweans were in power, but, little that they know; their own people oppressed the citizens and left them with no food and no money. Because of ethnicity against the Whites, Zimbabweans overthrow them and now they are suffering from their own decision. What goes around, comes right back around. They have nobody to blame except for themselves. Now, every time they starve, sick, and dying, they will remember the consequences of racism. They took the Whites for granted and now there is no money for just basic necessities to survive. Kristof said that “Western countries have made the mistake of focusing their denunciations on the seizures of white farms by Mr. Mugabe’s cronies. That’s tribalism by whites; by far the greatest suffering has been endured by Zimbabwe’s blacks."
By:Mary Mayout
Africa today is a continent that has experienced many problems with its people, government, and agriculture. Even though Africa has all these problems is there really a true solutions to all their problems they have? Personally no one knows but people can focus on one specific problem like the government. Zimbabwe a country in Africa formally known as Rhodesia has experienced many political problems in the past decade. Nicholas Kristof an American Journalist author of “Postcard From Zimbabwe” travels to Zimbabwe to interview villagers of the change that they have experienced with their new president named Robert Mugabe. However people started having second thoughts about Mugabe. For example, one of the villagers commented saying “it would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come.” The people of Zimbabwe thought it would of been better if their own ethnicity ruled them instead of another. In contrast Amy Chua claims that its ethnicity that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility. It’s definitely true that the people of Zimbabwe did not know what they were getting into. As a result of this kids were not able to attend school. Also mothers were not getting the medical attention needed for their babies that they were expecting. All this occurred just because they thought they could trust someone from their own ethnicity. Maybe its better if these countries have someone that pressures for democracy. However, Mugabe does not host elections for people to get their voices heard. Though on the other hand Amy would disagree because democracy is not the solution to countries problems. But honestly what else can we do to help these people in desperate need of help because from what I have read and heard about Mugabe, he sounds like a dictator not a president. Also if democracy is actually established in this location many people would be likely to have money and kids will be able to go to school to learn. Overall the change that Zimbabwe was expecting was not the one they got because now they are in a tough situation.
-Fidencio Romero
Kristof, in his New York Times article titled “On the Ground”, argues that the poverty and lack of development in Africa is caused by bad governance. He supports his argument by listing countries that have improved economically and socially under new governments. He also talks about how outside factors like colonialism are only small problems in comparison to the larger problem which is bad governance. While I do believe that Kristof is correct in saying that a good government will definitely improve the situation in African countries, I disagree with the premise that a good government is all these countries need in order to become developed nations. In Amy Chua’s article titled “A World on Edge”, she illustrates the complexity of globalization through the consequences of the expansion of free markets and democracy. While she would most likely agree with Kristof that good governments are needed, she would also point out that ethnic rivalries and other factors would need to be addressed first. The situation within each African country is unique, making it difficult to place new governments or democratic governments into power without disrupting the economic and social dynamics of each country. Chua claims that market –dominant minorities or the ethnic group in power must reform first before issues like poverty can be resolved. For the most part, I tend to agree with Chua because changing political structures can have drastic consequences when other factors are not taken into consideration. There is no easy solution as Chua points out, and the best way to understand issues like poverty in underdeveloped nations is to address all the factors (ethnic rivalries and governments) influencing the issues.
Before reading The New York Times article “Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty,” I scoped the page out and realized that the author was Nicholas D. Kristof, who wrote “Nicholas Kristof’s Advice for Saving the World” in our course reader. This gave me some background information on his stance and what this article I was about to read would entail. I also noticed the title inferred its main focus on Zimbabwe, one of the countries Amy Chua focuses on in her article about market dominant minorities in free market democracies was well.
This article by Kristof claims that “Some people think colonialism is the central problem…the way certain ethnic groups were favored — all these left huge problems behind. In other words, ethnicity favoritism is a great problem standing in the way of a strong government in a country. This definitely correlates to the claims in “A World on Edge” by Amy Chua. She claims that ethnic minorities and majorities play a big role in a countries governments. In fact she describes an example in Zimbabwe as well. Native Zimbabweans, the impoverished majority, are backlashing against foreigners, the wealthy minorities. Although the minorities account for a very small percentage, they control over half of the countries best land. This causes tension between the two ethnic groups which in turn causes tension in governments. And having a bad governmental systems turns into areas of poverty. Poverty stricken areas are mostly made up of the ethnic majority causes resentment and hate towards ethnic minorities, leading back to the start again. It becomes a tragic cycle. We need to create equality and fix these problems. Like Kristof says, “The silver lining is that good governance is as contagious as bad governance.” It is possible to restore governments and make life better for the people, the majorities and minorities.
Jake Schichting says-
Nicholas Kristof's article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" from The New York Times examines what has happened since the oppressive white minority was overthrown three decades ago. The country underwent the change from being called Rhodesia to Zimbabwe as they are now ruled by a tiny black elite led by President Mugabe. The farms run by the white minority were "seized by Mugabe's cronies" which takes away from the job market in the country. Kristof claims that international pressure on Mugabe for free elections is necessary in order to free the country from the grasp of his oppressive regime. I believe that democracy would be effective in Zimbabwe because it would open up their market and give the people of the country the social freedom that they do not have not. Evidence of this can be found in Kristof's article when he reports on how the citizens of Zimbabwe are terrified of being identified in his writing. If Mugabe gives Zimbabwe free elections and other countries and NGOs aid Zimbabwe economically the country can return to the prosperity that it once had under the white regime.
In Kristof's New York Times Magazine article, "Postcard From Zimbabwe", he argues the problems with Zimbabwe's government and the president Robert Mugabe and the effects it has on the people. First it is clear that a certain minority can change the way a country is run and the effects of the people. Chua discusses the problems with wealthy minorities controlling the economy of a country such as the problems between her Chinese minority and the Filipinos majority. It was interesting that in this article, Kristof states that the people of Zimbabwe actually preferred the old, racist, white regime than the current black regime now controlling Zimbabwe's government through Mugabe. The white regime had not been a positive one for people of Zimbabwe so a controlling minority still has its problems but the type or ethnicity of the minority is critical. The black regime they had put in power ended up causing massive oppression for the Zimbabweans. However, at least the whites were wealthy and able to take care of their people providing them with jobs, food, and medicines, something they do not currently have under Mugabe. The previous wealthy minority benefited the Zimbabweans even though Chua believes the wealthy minorities create tension, but at least they were "competent". The way a country is run is also critically effected by the government. Clearly the government is very strict as Kristof had to be "undercover" and bring his family just to get information and be able to write about these problems. If Zimbabwe held free elections, as Kristof says, the people would have much more power and be able to fix the problems in this country, such as finally creating access to medicines and providing proper schoolings for the children. This refutes Chua's claim that a democracy would hurt a countries economy. In this case, all Zimbabweans need is a free election and democracy to be able to elect someone that would take care of their economy. All they would need to do is elect someone other than Mugabe who is currently destroying their economy. Kristof believes democracy would help this country, something Chua argues against, but it is clear through Kristof's evidence that perhaps democracy can help some countries.
Nicholas D. Kristof explains in the New York Times article, "Postcard from Zimbabwe", that the new government in Zimbabwe is far worse than the white government they used to have. In this government's rule they have no food, hardly enough education, and barely health supplies. According to Amy Chua's article "The World on Edge", she magnified that one of the ways that the nation would fight back to minority ruled markets or free markets is by hurting the nation itself. The nation in other words will seem more like a dictatorship, and loose the focus of helping the people in order to stop it from being abused from other wealthier nations. Zimbabwe's new government is making anything that the old white rulers owned to be forced out. This nation is trying to remove any ties to the old white government in order limit their influence, but in the process they are hurting their people. On the other hand Kristof believes that the other nations need to intervene and make Zimbabwe hold elections and become more democratic. This however can backfire because it will help the government in the long run, but it might cause even more problems right now. The existing government will want to resist the other nations, which means more problems for the people in Zimbabwe because they will receive less food, heath, and attention.
Africa for as long as I can remember has always been in poverty and had always needed the help of the United States or other countries in one way or another. In this article about Zimbabwe, Kristof claims the reason behind Africa's problems is because of its poor government system. In the article Kristof give examples of several countries that have been colonized within the past century that have been colonized and have not benefited from it. And according to Chua, ethnicity definitely affects a government and in this case it did exactly that. If different groups in their own and surrounding countries cannot get along then it develops more advanced problems for Africa. When countries begin to fight with one another there is no relation to one another and there is no compromise when dealing with issues like the government and how it's run. Kristof states, "The silver lining is that good governance is as contagious as bad governance'" meaning no government is permanent and there will be better ones than others. Even with help from others some countries are still struggling and when people see no progress in these places they begin to lost faith for progress in other countries. Zimbabwe can most certainly keep them from this and elect a leader worth living under if they really wanted to.
I found both of Kristof’s articles interesting. I agree most with him in the paragraph that says “it is clear that African countries can register enormous economic growth when they are well-governed… What distinguishes the fastest-growing economies in Africa, also including Rwanda, is simply their good governance. And what distinguishes the worst-performing countries tends to be a combination of bad governance and (often related) incessant conflict.”
Another thing I found interesting about the first article is when he quotes a Zimbabwean that says, “it would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come.” Many cultural conflicts occur because of language barriers. (Think how certain Americans act when they see Spanish options at the ATM.) In Africa (and many parts of India,) there is violence between groups that speak different languages. In a way, Great Britain’s imperialism incorporated English into African, Indian, etc. culture, which has helped the masses communicate better. Imagine where Africa would be if there were 7 or 8 languages within one country.
Also, the political atmosphere throughout Africa is very survival-of-the-fittest oriented, which can be attributed to its high level of corruption.
z
Africa is one of the slowest developing nations's in the world. Some countries, such as Rwanda and Botswana are actually doing well but the majority of the rest of the countries are well below every other prospering nation. As Amy Chua stated, democracy wont necessarily help everyone out, but i believe in order for people to do well, they need structure. If America didnt have structure such as laws and prison time, many would be living in poverty and stealing in order to get by. Since we have a democracy and we are able to voice our opinions on things, we are the country other countries turn to in order to receive help when needed. Africa has been devastated with famine, corrupted government and many other boundaries that havent exactly given them the chance to prosper. Even though Chua claims democracy wont solve everything everytime, im sure there is nothing wrong with trying something new since the way people have been handling things before are not exactly helping them catch up with the rest of the world. Usually a government has zero compromise when it comes to certain things, and due to this many people have lost hope and decide to stay quiet. As long as people do not voice their opinions, nothing will be done and things will remain the same.
In his article "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African poverty", Nicholas Kristof writes that he believes if Africa (specifically Zimbabwe) were "well-governed" like Botswana, that they can "register enormous economic growth". Amy Chua, however, believes that "the spread of markets and democracy is a principal aggravating cause of group hatred and ethnic violence throughout the non-Western world", and though she would probably agree with him on his claim that "good governance is as contagious as bad governance" she would argue that their government should not be based on our American form of democracy. She would say that since Zimbabwe is ruled by Robert Mugabe who based his campaign for presidency over and over again on redirecting rule away from the white-minority by "[s]trik[ing] fear in the heart of the white man," if they were to have a democracy like ours the people of Zimbabwe would most likely still vote for him to be leader rather than Arthur Mutambara (who Kristof believes is a fine example for a future leader of the country) solely on the fact that Mugabe is considered the hero of Zimbabwe's black liberation movement. Chua would further argue that since there is a tension between an elite--economically-powerful ethnic minority and "numerically powerful impoverished majority" that the backlash between the two would hinder the help that a free-market and democracy run government would provide to that country. "It is ethnicity, however, that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility" is how Chua put her argument in her work "A World on Edge". So when Kristof says as "East Asia went quite quickly from disaster area to a center of global economic dynamism... it’s not impossible that the same could happen in Africa if it gets the kind of leaders it deserves", Chua would simply tell him to reconsider his claim with the fact that there is a ethnic tension within Zimbabwe and that it is not as simple as gaining a "right" leader...well, that I what I would say if I were Amy Chua.
Before reading the article by Nicholas Kristoff I began looking at the title and I remembered that Amy Chua also mentioned Zimbabwe. To be honest I didn’t know where Zimbabwe was, all I knew was that it was located in Africa. In the article called “Postcard from Zimbabwe” Nicholas Kristoff claims that the pressure that is put on Mugabe for free election is essential in order to free the country. In the article “A World on Edge” Amy Chua discusses the problems with wealthy minorities controlling the economy of a country such as the problems between her Chinese minority and the Filipinos majority. The way that the country is being ran is just hurting its citizens if they believe it or not. The government is very ruling and strict like its supposed to be, but its not fair and it hurting the country’s economy as well. In order for the citizens of Zimbabwe to be able to elect a new president or change the way things are right now is only if the citizens get a free election. Kristoff believes that democracy is good and that it would help Zimbabwe, but Chua does not. The citizens in Zimbabwe need to pull together so that they can elect a new leader and live better lives. This article was extremely interesting, even though I find Kristoff hard to read at times. I enjoyed reading his ideas, and in my opinion I think Kristoff is a very intelligent man.
Katarina Panciu
Just as he does in his article, "Nicholas Kristof's Advice for Saving the World" Kristof claims in the article entitled, "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty" that the root of the problem, where poverty stems from, is political. In this article about Zimbabwe, he states his belief that "what distinguishes the worst-performing countries tends to be a combination of bad governance and (often related) incessant conflict." Amy Chua, in "A World on the Edge" also uses the example of Zimbabwe to display the destruction of their economy due to the irrationality of a political leader. She explains that Zimbabwe's economy took a "free fall" because President Robert Mugabe's "violent seizure of 10 million acres of white-owned commercial farmland." As Kuper speaks of the improvement in the economy of Botswana since their obtaining of good leadership, the irresponsibility of Mugabe's actions and unwise policies led to a crash in economy for the country. Therefore Chua and Kuper seem to be in agreement that the road to poverty relief begins with having a good government and wise leadership.
In the article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" Nicholas Kristof intterviewed some people ordinary people that lived in Zimbabwe, and the main response was how it seemed like everything was actually better back when the country was run under the old, racist white regime. When the country was called Rhosesia and the whites ruled the country, people explained how things were actually somewhat positive because money was actually being made. many were excited for the country to change but didn't realize that they would end up being oppressed. Kristof seems to make the point that President Robert Mugabe has brought about all of these negative things and that they should hold free elections to make a change there. Amy Chua would claim that even if there are changes made in the government, that's not neccesarily going to solve all of their problems. It could maybe temporarily solve their problems or help somewhat, but it wouldn't completely turn around their country. People are starving, dieing of sickness, and their life spans are shortening right in front of their eyes. This country needs to make some major changes in their government and President Mugabe needs to be replaced if they want to have any sort of hope to look foward to.
Elijah Auer said...
It seems that Africa has big political problem. This problem hasn't been around forever, but its dictators have brought the country down in the past years. In "Postcard From Zimbabwe" Nicholas Kirstof claims that "today's nasty oppressive regime run by the tiny black elite that surrounds Mr. Mugabe." The country wanted to get rid of their old government of whites. They soon realized that even rulers of their own race can ruin the country economically. Kristof notes that Zimbabwe is a beautiful country, but its reputation is marred by the political and economic state of despair. Amy Chua states that the solution is that globalization of democracy will not solve their problems. She thinks that reformation needs to come but in other ways. Kristof counters this when he mentions his solution to Zimbabwe's problems. "The tragedy that has unfolded here can be reversed if Mr. Mugabe is obliged by international pressure." The international pressure must be towards free elections. These free elections will give the country freedom from the half century of devastation that they have been living in.
This can go on no longer in Zimbabwe. They need to have change to their way of living. When i heard the story Kristof told about the mother that could not get medical help for her malaria. This is very disheartening to hear these tragedies. If only she had $2 to spend. Then she would have been cured from her life-threatening disease. People don't realize the difference of living in America vs other countries. Until you experience first hand like Kristof, you can't relate to their problems. I think that they should get rid of Mugabe and let the people decide on something for once. The people of Zimbabwe have no voice, and are losing their lives at a fast rate. Political reformation needs to come to save these stricken people from this terrible state.
Nicholas Kristof’s article in New York Times, “Postcard from Zimbabwe” explains the various forms of governments of Zimbabwe and their effects on the country. The past White “Rhodesia” government was replaced by a worse and far more oppressive Black-ruled government. Back when the Whites were in power, the Zimbabweans were extremely unhappy, and when a new president, Robert Mugabe, promised a Black-ruled regime, the Zimbabweans of course jumped at the chance. However, after becoming president, Mugabe and his Black elite have done nothing beneficial to the country. Kristof describes that the Zimbabweans preferred the old Rhodesian government. The Rhodesian government at least had a healthcare, education, and safety that was all dismantled when Mugabe rose to power. I can see that Mugabe probably does not want a government that is similar in any way to the Rhodesian government, but he is severely damaging Zimbabwe in the process. Kristof states that a good government could perhaps prevent many of these problems. I do agree that a better government can often improve the well-being of the people, like the Rhodesian government. However, as Chua states in “A World on Edge”, having a democratic government does not work for all countries, especially given the complexities of different countries. If Zimbabwe were to have a democracy, it would not guarantee the rights or the well-being of the people. A better government does need to be set up eventually, but Chua would assert that several issues would have to be addressed first, like the conflicts between ethnic groups.
Many areas of Africa are facing harsh situations and these ares far behind based on the norm of the world. The problems causing these harsh times include severe droughts, excessive poverty, and most importantly very corrupt governments. Before Zimbabwe the nation of Rhodesia was not so good so when it became Zimbabwe individuals were excited because they thought change would come but little did they know that the government would oppress them. The election brought about new leaders as well as severe poverty hurting the nation even more than it was hurting before. As Amy Chua states democracy will not fix all their problems and in the case of Zimbabwe it didnt just not fix them it made them worse. In the article "Post Card from Zimbabwe" a man who took a visit gives his review of the tings he saw and heard on his visit and all the things he tells come from individuals who lived in both Rhodesia and Zimbabwe and believe once the nation became a democracy everything became much worse. This just confirms what Amy Chua believes which is democracy is not for everyone. The US is a well established nation and a democracy seems to work very well but every constitution does not limit the power of the government as does that of the nation therefore making the idea a good one but not a very planned out one in all nations.
Kristof in his piece is saying that any country can become well off and that colonization is not the answer because place that have been colonized or not formally colonized are not so well off. He gives many example of neighboring countries that are very similar where one has been colonized and the other has not. He then goes on to say that the answer is the people in charge the governement and having the intelligent people to step up to do it. Like we had Thomas Jefferson along with many others. Counrties need people to step out of the crowd, focus on the problems, and go about coming up with a constitution to go about fixing it. After they come together to pick the country off the gound they can go from their and democracy get work from their as long as they come up with a great constitution to go with it.
Rashele Rodriguez comment above is mine
Carlos Arroyo- Amy Chua, in her article “A World on the Edge,” states that “It is ethnicity, however, that gives the combination of markets and democracy its special combustibility.” Amy Chua explains that ethnicity is one of the major factors of conflict that is terrifyingly difficult to understand and contain.” What Chua is referring to is the minority of ethnic groups that lives with the majority of a different ethnic group. As I read the article on Zimbabwe I would have to say it is way worse then the Phillipenes. The author discribes that the education and helth security is bad children are not able to get an education because their parents are not able t afford it. A pregnant women was diagnosed with malaria and couldnt get any medical attention because she could not afford two dollars. Chua blames the differnce of ethnicity for the problems of poverty. Her aunt was killed by one of her aunt servants her chouffer to be exact and where she lives the Chinese are more wealthier then the Fillipinos and that was the reason she believes her aunt was murdered because of jeliousy from the Fillipino. In the article of Zimbabwe by Kristof he says if whites were still in control our world would not be in poverty and i do not agree with that.
Post a Comment