Rendered at 15:51:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
hn_submit 51 minutes ago [-]
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.
warumdarum 32 minutes ago [-]
Corruption depends on the rule of law. And you can not have rule of law, when the primary state-forming institution is the clan-family. Its just not possible.
So any culture, that can not produce state-builders, is doomed to fail forever, with the history dotted with failures. Its hard to understand- but these states you see on the map, named and infamed- are not real. The clan who rules and the cityparts and cities they own and live in, that is the state. The rest- is conquered territories, ruled by other clan-families, who are subjugated and extracted from.
Which is why these countries are so much more prosperous when outsiders rule them, supressing the clan systems for anything more meritocratic.
acjohnson55 7 minutes ago [-]
> Which is why these countries are so much more prosperous when outsiders rule them, supressing the clan systems for anything more meritocratic.
That's generally not how colonization worked. Quite often, colonization intentionally created the large scale tribal identities. Allegiance to clans grows because of deep suspicion of extractive governments put in place by outsiders.
znpy 21 minutes ago [-]
You’re right, but you’re gonna get called a racist for writing that.
dayofthedaleks 9 minutes ago [-]
Hard to be a true state builder over the past 80 years without being capped by the CIA or else suborned to the soviets/bratva.
Which almost makes China's mercantilist foothold on the continent seem like an improvement.
gentlerain 40 minutes ago [-]
Who is going to educate the population when the elites in control of the country are fighting amongst themselves due to greed and selfishness?
Corruption isn't even fought by educating the masses, it just happens that at a given time, the country gets a less selfish leader who decides enough is enough and jails the culprits. This is how countries like Korea, Singapore did it
shevy-java 45 minutes ago [-]
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.
forgotTheLast 26 minutes ago [-]
OP is talking about corruption which is orthogonal to being a dictatorship. In fact the least corrupt subsaharan country is (by far) Rwanda, which is a de facto dictatorship.
And the impacts of corruption/cronyism/clientelism are not just money being siphoned at the top. It completely breaks any fair competition wether it's in economic markets or for jobs. Businesses don't succeed based on how competitive or innovative they are, simply based on who their founder knows and how much they're willing to pay in bribes, so your economic development stragnates. Important and influential positions are awarded not to the most competent but to the richest.
Opening a small business requires you to bribe dozens of people, and good luck if you need to import or export goods.
yorwba 2 minutes ago [-]
More competitive companies can afford higher bribes (consider Samsung), so corruption doesn't necessarily kill competition. Most African countries manage decent GDP per capita growth rates and ironically Ethiopia is tied with Rwanda for fastest growth at 7%. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat... Certainly it could be faster with less corruption, but at least poor African countries are getting less poor. Maybe it'll also help them get less corrupt over time.
reenorap 7 minutes ago [-]
They need a Bukkele to come in and suspend human rights and execute all the politicians associated with corruption and use the military to throw all the warlords and criminals in jail.
The people in those countries deserve to live a life free from corruption and the only way to do it is Bukkele-style
ceejayoz 6 minutes ago [-]
The strongman approach, notably, never leads to corruption and warlords.
csense 1 hours ago [-]
Interestingly, Ethiopia wasn't always poor and backward. Back in the classical era, Ethiopia (then known as Axum or Aksum) was a major power [1].
That was back when Aksum had a large Greek minority and other minorities, and even in some periods of time had coinage with Greek writing.
Also, Aksum probably overlaps much more with Eritrea than with Ethiopia. Aksum was also mostly surrounded by desert, mountains, at least one volcano, and the sea, and its territory tended to be close to the sea, also for trade. Surprisingly isolated from the rest of Africa south of the Sahara.
What is the Songhai empire known for, apart from size, gold and slave trading? Any great architecture or scientific achievements?
andruby 28 minutes ago [-]
Civilizations flourish and falter. Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Egyptians, Romans, …
Given (enough) time, it’ll also happen to the ones at the peak now.
Merhawie 25 minutes ago [-]
Aksum ≠ Ethiopia. Aksum was a major power of its time, but the Ethiopia of today is very different.
shevy-java 44 minutes ago [-]
2000 years ago. We are living in the past?
_menelaus 26 minutes ago [-]
Yeah what is so interesting about the past
thenthenthen 60 seconds ago [-]
I fail to understand what is not interesting about the past. It wont predict the future, but maybe we can learn?
abenga 33 minutes ago [-]
What's your point?
macleginn 1 hours ago [-]
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.
jt2190 1 hours ago [-]
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.
shevy-java 47 minutes ago [-]
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.
Merhawie 14 minutes ago [-]
Eritrea/ns have historically, significant cost, demonstrated that they will resist Ethiopian occupation (see 1961-1991 and 1998-2000 conflicts). Ethiopia could re-negotiate access (see 1993-1998 agreements), however Ethiopia (state) argues for "access" in English while arguing for "ownership" in Amharic. Eritrea/ns are reasonably suspicious.
bilbo0s 31 minutes ago [-]
That's an outdated take at this point though right?
I mean pretty much everyone, today, (Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South sudan, etc etc), has settled on Kenya being the answer to all those questions. No one wants to access the sea in the Eritrea direction anymore since everything going on in Kenya is making Kenyan coastal access such a no-brainer. (And all of that was even before the Iran war showed that making your shipping dependent on the Eritrea route, and mideast chokepoints in general, is just, I mean, I'll be diplomatic and call it "ill-considered"). Now, with the newest attachments being considered for the LAPSSET corridor, going through Eritrea is just insanity by comparison.
So even without the geography problem, there is still war is my point. Now, of course, you could argue it's still a geography problem since the proxy-masters are mostly concerned about getting rid of the dam long term. But that's another issue is all I'm saying.
yohannesk 2 hours ago [-]
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
49 minutes ago [-]
jakozaur 2 hours ago [-]
So many comments sound apocalyptic when they face inconveniences like inflation. See this recent post by a Polish guy:
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.
lukan 1 hours ago [-]
"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)
darubedarob 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
bsoqk 1 hours ago [-]
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.
jayGlow 45 minutes ago [-]
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.
lukan 18 minutes ago [-]
Because of history, how it was founded and people from both sides living in europe?
Germany as an extreme example has the survival of Israel as state doctrin. So that is a hot topic by definition.
Then there are many jews living in the west who sends weapons en masse to Israel - and there are also many Palestinian/Arabs living in the west. All that directly effects us.
Ethopia on the other hand is one of few african countries that was not (really) colonized. So there are not so much ties. The strongest is probably reggae and Haile Selassi chanting in songs, but most have no idea who that was. So, people are less interested naturally.
ahtihn 50 minutes ago [-]
Why are we paying so much attention to what's happening in Israel then?
someonebaggy 49 minutes ago [-]
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.
bsoqk 39 minutes ago [-]
Because it affects gas prices.
otikik 1 hours ago [-]
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.
And then… well.
Attention is indeed weird.
bilbo0s 55 minutes ago [-]
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.
Educate.
penultimatename 1 hours ago [-]
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?
estearum 1 hours ago [-]
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.
jakozaur 1 hours ago [-]
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.
Propelloni 1 hours ago [-]
Why do they have to choose? That's not a problem of inflation, but of wealth distribution or, if you will, our system of economy.
raverbashing 1 hours ago [-]
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
ReaLNero 1 hours ago [-]
Thank you for sharing this.
Razengan 1 hours ago [-]
> Attention is a weird beast.
Correction: The mass media serving a select few interests is a weird beast.
..well not really weird if you recognize it that way :)
46 minutes ago [-]
ngruhn 1 hours ago [-]
> 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.
darubedarob 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
3 hours ago [-]
NooneAtAll3 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
MadrasTh0rn 2 hours ago [-]
It seems US is backing china's stake in Iran and houthis at the moment
tchalla 2 hours ago [-]
I’m guessing Western countries have no stake in wars probably.
Razengan 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Avicebron 2 hours ago [-]
More likely belt and road shenanigans these days
Razengan 2 hours ago [-]
Oh yeah that too now
Imagine the shit we're gonna see in 2100 caused from that..
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?
sarchertech 1 hours ago [-]
And you can go back further and say that it can all be traced back to Alexander or the Persians or the Mongols.
mohamedkoubaa 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe you should read the article before posting something like this
2 hours ago [-]
Forgeties79 2 hours ago [-]
This is exactly the sort of comment the guidelines explicitly say not to write.
> 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".
lukan 2 hours ago [-]
It also says this:
"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.
Razengan 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
perching_aix 2 hours ago [-]
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".
Razengan 2 hours ago [-]
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?
Yep. Europeans :)
perching_aix 1 hours ago [-]
Would be nice if you actually engaged with what I said. I have zero interest in litigating your idea, it being well supported or not is besides the point.
whiteconspi 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago [-]
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.
Forgeties79 30 minutes ago [-]
The comment appears to have been edited. I saw nothing about having not read it. So to me it looked really smarmy and unwarranted.
mohamedkoubaa 2 hours ago [-]
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
Forgeties79 5 minutes ago [-]
Yeah I didn’t see anything about having not read it, so to those who did I probably looked less reasonable. If that’s the case then your comment was more warranted
whiteconspi 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
bronlund 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lukan 2 hours ago [-]
Same answer as always, because people upvoted it and so far not enough flagged it. But judging current momentum, only a question of time.
But I think, the article does have the potential for a interesting debate, though.
aadhavans 2 hours ago [-]
Despite what you might think, Hacker News isn't just a place for technical content.
nikanj 2 hours ago [-]
For once, we also cared about wars in Africa, instead of ignoring them and talking about Gaza. I think this is a good development
2 hours ago [-]
freeafrica4 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
AlotOfReading 2 hours ago [-]
There are multiple major factors driving the tigray conflict. Politics, ideology, ethnonationalism, etc. Religion isn't one of them.
2 hours ago [-]
nick_ 2 hours ago [-]
Ethiopia was never colonized.
squidbeak 1 hours ago [-]
Italy colonized it for 5 years.
sarchertech 1 hours ago [-]
A brief military occupation during world war 2 isn’t what people mean by the world colonized. No one would say that Germany colonized France.
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.
esseph 2 hours ago [-]
So why were they fighting before Islam and Christianity?
pfannkuchen 2 hours ago [-]
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?
whiteconspi 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
pseudony 2 hours ago [-]
Hmm. You are right, first thing my white colonial mind is put to is a nice cuppa, followed by manipulating the natives to war amongst themselves.
Come on.
nephihaha 2 hours ago [-]
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
yohannesk 2 hours ago [-]
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
failbuffer 2 hours ago [-]
Most everyone is indoctrinated into their faith as children. "Choice" doesn't really describe cultural programming.
Isamu 1 hours ago [-]
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.
nephihaha 2 hours ago [-]
Ethiopia was Christian before a lot of northern Europe was...
whiteconspi 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
delichon 1 hours ago [-]
> Ethiopia, for example, adopted Christianity as a state religion in the 4th century, long before European colonization.
That is European colonization, possibly the most effective form.
throw-the-towel 1 hours ago [-]
Calling 3rd century Christianity "European" stretches the definition of Europe a lot.
acjohnson55 18 minutes ago [-]
Europe didn't exist as a cultural concept at that time. There was Rome, but that was a Mediterranean empire with hugely significant southern European, east Asian, and north African components. Citizens and elites came from all parts.
Eventually, we get a Europe united under Christianity, but I wouldn't call that fully developed until the end of the Viking age.
HappyPanacea 1 hours ago [-]
Is Christianity European or Levant by origin?
AlotOfReading 31 minutes ago [-]
When the branch of christianity the Ethiopian church belonged to (Oriental orthodoxy) schismed from the western tradition, there were 5 centers of Christianity called the Pentarchy. Only one of them (Rome) was in what's now Europe, and at that point was more of a symbolic center than a seat of actual power.
43 minutes ago [-]
password54321 2 hours ago [-]
>It assumes African Christians only hold their faith because of colonizers and denies us our own agency.
And they would be correct. Most people never "chose" their beliefs. It was systematically embedded by people who have had power over them.
roryirvine 2 hours ago [-]
Slightly nonsensical to apply modern discourse about European colonisation to events of 1,700 years ago, though.
"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.
lovich 2 hours ago [-]
You choose your religion on a daily basis or we wouldn’t see anyone ever convert from one to the other.
People have agency.
password54321 2 hours ago [-]
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).
HappyPanacea 1 hours ago [-]
Not everyone believe in religious freedom, and even those who in paper do might discriminate against those who convert
lovich 1 hours ago [-]
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.
vouwfietsman 1 hours ago [-]
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.
baxtr 2 hours ago [-]
How did you chose your religion?
whiteconspi 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
alt227 1 hours ago [-]
Wow, the percentage of dead comments in this thread is wild. HN is far more politically sensitive than I ever thought it would be.
card_zero 1 hours ago [-]
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.
Edit: rather oddly I just posted an innocuous comment (a couple of Wikipedia links) and it was immediately dead on arrival. What's going on there? Wild auto-modding.
melbournesky 1 hours ago [-]
anything that would highlight something negative the chinese are doing will be botted to hell and back
bilbo0s 1 hours ago [-]
I don't know man? This is Ethiopia.
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.
the_af 3 minutes ago [-]
Excuse my ignorance, but what dam? TFA doesn't mention either a dam or the Chinese, in fact it does an analysis of "Ethiopian wars of choice" completely unrelated to either thing.
bilbo0s 1 hours ago [-]
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.
Which is why these countries are so much more prosperous when outsiders rule them, supressing the clan systems for anything more meritocratic.
That's generally not how colonization worked. Quite often, colonization intentionally created the large scale tribal identities. Allegiance to clans grows because of deep suspicion of extractive governments put in place by outsiders.
Which almost makes China's mercantilist foothold on the continent seem like an improvement.
Corruption isn't even fought by educating the masses, it just happens that at a given time, the country gets a less selfish leader who decides enough is enough and jails the culprits. This is how countries like Korea, Singapore did it
And the impacts of corruption/cronyism/clientelism are not just money being siphoned at the top. It completely breaks any fair competition wether it's in economic markets or for jobs. Businesses don't succeed based on how competitive or innovative they are, simply based on who their founder knows and how much they're willing to pay in bribes, so your economic development stragnates. Important and influential positions are awarded not to the most competent but to the richest. Opening a small business requires you to bribe dozens of people, and good luck if you need to import or export goods.
The people in those countries deserve to live a life free from corruption and the only way to do it is Bukkele-style
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum
Also, Aksum probably overlaps much more with Eritrea than with Ethiopia. Aksum was also mostly surrounded by desert, mountains, at least one volcano, and the sea, and its territory tended to be close to the sea, also for trade. Surprisingly isolated from the rest of Africa south of the Sahara.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-Hewn_Churches,_Lalibela
??? This comment was dead the second I posted it, how/why is that? Oh, visible again now, fair enough.
Maybe I should have included some context: these are a couple of Ethiopian cultural things that I think are neat. Uh, that's about it, really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai_Empire
Given (enough) time, it’ll also happen to the ones at the peak now.
> 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.
I mean pretty much everyone, today, (Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South sudan, etc etc), has settled on Kenya being the answer to all those questions. No one wants to access the sea in the Eritrea direction anymore since everything going on in Kenya is making Kenyan coastal access such a no-brainer. (And all of that was even before the Iran war showed that making your shipping dependent on the Eritrea route, and mideast chokepoints in general, is just, I mean, I'll be diplomatic and call it "ill-considered"). Now, with the newest attachments being considered for the LAPSSET corridor, going through Eritrea is just insanity by comparison.
So even without the geography problem, there is still war is my point. Now, of course, you could argue it's still a geography problem since the proxy-masters are mostly concerned about getting rid of the dam long term. But that's another issue is all I'm saying.
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)
Germany as an extreme example has the survival of Israel as state doctrin. So that is a hot topic by definition.
Then there are many jews living in the west who sends weapons en masse to Israel - and there are also many Palestinian/Arabs living in the west. All that directly effects us.
Ethopia on the other hand is one of few african countries that was not (really) colonized. So there are not so much ties. The strongest is probably reggae and Haile Selassi chanting in songs, but most have no idea who that was. So, people are less interested naturally.
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
Correction: The mass media serving a select few interests is a weird beast.
..well not really weird if you recognize it that way :)
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.
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.
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.
Eventually, we get a Europe united under Christianity, but I wouldn't call that fully developed until the end of the Viking age.
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.
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.
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.
Edit: rather oddly I just posted an innocuous comment (a couple of Wikipedia links) and it was immediately dead on arrival. What's going on there? Wild auto-modding.
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.