Interesting Global Maps

[dafunk5446]

Found some cool maps while searching the internet,
Perception political corruption


Life expectancy

Edited October 29, 2008 by dafunk5446

[Karot]

How exactly do you measure political corruption?

[gaia.plateau]

You'd think that a major part of it would be based on how much political favours are exchanged for money, blood ties, etc... but then Canada and the US would be far, far worse. A history of free elections, maybe? Costa Rica should really be green, it's pretty much the least corrupt government on earth, I would think that France and Germany would be less corrupt than the UK and the US.

I don't know about the Nambibia exception on the life expectancy-healthcare expenditure graph, but South Africa is probably explainable by the fact that a hell of a lot is spent on white people, who get chopped up a lot by angry mobs, and practically nothing is spent on black people, who probably drag that figure way down especially with infant mortality.

[bigvito]

Weird... The third reich is full of money? or am i missing something?

[AKammenzind]

Weird... The third reich is full of money? or am i missing something?

...Come again?

On another note, I would like to know how political corruptness is measured as well...

[dafunk5446]

Sorry it is supposed to be percieved political corruption. I dont think its any real number, its just a guess. I wouldn't argue with it though, there is a lot of pet projects that government officals pass for there personal gain, all of the world.

Gaia- I agree you would think costa rica would be less corrupt. But it does look like France is a little less corrupt then we are, and Germany is around the same.

I think my favorite one is the life expectancy and national expenditures, not only do we spend WAY more then other countries we dont live as long, go figure.

As for the third reich, as well as japan for that matter, it really does make sense when you think about it. First of this is GDP/per capita, so it is not an actual picture of what is in people pockets, it is how much money the whole country has divided by population. Also after WW2 both of those countries were not allowed to have a military, so all those military funds get put back into the country and are counted towards GDP, unlike America where our military spending counts against GDP. Edited October 30, 2008 by dafunk5446

[gaia.plateau]

Sorry it is supposed to be percieved political corruption. I dont think its any real number, its just a guess. I wouldn't argue with it though, there is a lot of pet projects that government officals pass for there personal gain, all of the world.

Isn't that sort of useless then? I mean, history has shown that a fundamental feature of people living under corrupt, often despotic regimes is an epidemic of self delusion. So it's entirely possible that the most corrupt regimes will be the least perceived as corrupt, especially in developed, Western countries where self delusion is practically our traditional cultural art form.

In any case... interesting pictures, but that one especially I wouldn't put any stock in, as the researchers almost certainly just polled 50-1,000 people in each country and asked them to answer questions based on a 1-5 system. In these cases the questions are almost always biased, even if the researchers don't intend them to be.

my favourite example is a quantitative study I read for a seminar class last year, wherein the author found that 85% Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadoreans and Nicaraguans were "in favour of globalization". The most immediately apparent problem with this is the dynamic nature of the word globalization. I mean shit, I go to one of the best universities in the world, and I guarantee that if you polled all the non-liberal arts students as to what globalization means, less than 1 in 10 would give you a solid answer, much less a "correct" one. So how could a researcher accurately pose this question to a Mayan farmer that doesn't even know what a computer is?

Well, that was in very fine print, in the appendix. While he varied his questions somewhat, the crux of his research was asking these people things like "do you like having a job?" or "do you like having money?" or "do you like to buy things from other countries?" And if anyone answered yes to these, he marked it down as supportive of globalization. I just thought I'd share that anecdote in regard to quantative studies. Edited October 30, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[dafunk5446]

Yes it is useless, it is only an opinion of the researcher who compiled the chart. If it were accurate, I would bet there would be alot more red in the "civilized" world. I also agree with the delusion aspect. Every day I look at all these people walking around, completely oblivious to the world around them. It is sickening!

They way polls and studies are preformed are usually inaccurate. Mostly due to personal bias of the researcher or ineffective polling/study methods. The example put forth by gaia was very good one.

[Heelie]

Yes it is useless, it is only an opinion of the researcher who compiled the chart. If it were accurate, I would bet there would be alot more red in the "civilized" world. I also agree with the delusion aspect. Every day I look at all these people walking around, completely oblivious to the world around them. It is sickening!

They way polls and studies are preformed are usually inaccurate. Mostly due to personal bias of the researcher or ineffective polling/study methods. The example put forth by gaia was very good one.

Agreed, but the civilized world has no where near the level of corruption that exists in Africa.

[AKammenzind]

Agreed, but the civilized world has no where near the level of corruption that exists in Africa.

I'm not sure that the two can even be compared to be honest. Political corruption in the 'civilized' world is mostly a matter of your everyday bribes, lying, embezzlement, etc. You know, basically just government being government. In Africa... it's a whole other clusterfuck. They don't just steal money over there, they rape and loot entire towns and get away with it while the whole world sends aid money for them to intercept and buy more arms with to continue the cycle.

[gaia.plateau]

Just a clarification for those that aren't aware... the "aid money" that AK is talking about is actually "loan money" that must be paid back with unreasonable interest, and more importantly that comes with severe strings attached, such privatizing things like water and electricity to be owned and run by Western companies, and eliminating social programmes like schools and hospitals.

Also, 100% of the violent conflict in Africa is directly resulting from colonial policies, as can be explained for any country in question by anyone with even the most basic understanding.

Some countries, like Tanzania and Egypt are doing fairly well, but the majority of Africa is incredibly corrupt. Still, do you blame the wolves for being wolves, or do you blame the people that let the wolves into the hen house?

And the use of the term "civilized world" in contrast to less developed countries such as those of Africa, would probably be offensive to a lot of people, but to the informed it is simply hilarious.

Fake edit: also LoL at Sarah Palin sincerely believing Africa to be a country.

[dafunk5446]

Just a clarification for those that aren't aware... the "aid money" that AK is talking about is actually "loan money" that must be paid back with unreasonable interest, and more importantly that comes with severe strings attached, such privatizing things like water and electricity to be owned and run by Western companies, and eliminating social programmes like schools and hospitals.

Enter the World Bank, and other great institutions such as them. Great people in my book, making leaps and bounds in the humanities departments. If you dont know how fucked the world bank is watch any documentary on Jamaica, or well any other "developing" world.

Still, do you blame the wolves for being wolves, or do you blame the people that let the wolves into the hen house?

Same problem with Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way countries become better is when the people realize they dont have to put up with the shit their "leaders" put them through. That is why the USA spending 10 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH in iraq is retarded, a waste of time, money, and human lives!!!!!!!!

And the use of the term "civilized world" in contrast to less developed countries such as those of Africa, would probably be offensive to a lot of people, but to the informed it is simply hilarious.

Agreed, use of quotations is to signify it hilarious-ness and stupidity as a valid term.

Fake edit: also LoL at Sarah Palin sincerely believing Africa to be a country.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She didnt know who was part of NAFTA!!!!! She couldn't even name ONE newspaper that she reads!!!! Thats assuming she can even read!!!!! How can you be a polition and be so stupid!!! I guess the MILF factor carried her further then anyone had ever guessed!!!! AND what does that say for the people WHO ACTUALLY VOTED FOR HER!!!!!!!!! Do you need anymore of a reason why she shouldn't be allowed even to step foot in the white house? Edited November 7, 2008 by dafunk5446

[gaia.plateau]

But if McCain had won... and then died... god damn would a Palin administration be hilarious. I mean, for people that don't live in the US.

[dafunk5446]

Yeah you guys get comedy while we get suck dealing with that women....I guess it could have been a sort of karma for all the shit the USA has done. I told my girlfriend that if McCain and Palin won, I was going to pack my bags that night and we would leave for canada this weekend, I still have a Social Insurance Number, so I think I could have slipped back into the country fairly easily.

[Heelie]

Just a clarification for those that aren't aware... the "aid money" that AK is talking about is actually "loan money" that must be paid back with unreasonable interest, and more importantly that comes with severe strings attached, such privatizing things like water and electricity to be owned and run by Western companies, and eliminating social programmes like schools and hospitals.

Also, 100% of the violent conflict in Africa is directly resulting from colonial policies, as can be explained for any country in question by anyone with even the most basic understanding.

Some countries, like Tanzania and Egypt are doing fairly well, but the majority of Africa is incredibly corrupt. Still, do you blame the wolves for being wolves, or do you blame the people that let the wolves into the hen house?

And the use of the term "civilized world" in contrast to less developed countries such as those of Africa, would probably be offensive to a lot of people, but to the informed it is simply hilarious.

Fake edit: also LoL at Sarah Palin sincerely believing Africa to be a country.

Those loans are never getter paid back anyways so those strings attached mean little. Much of the money goes to buy palaces for the dictators while the people starve. People need to have the guts to hold Africans responsible for their own actions and stop making excuses for them. At what point in time do you stop blaming other people for all this? Rwanda, civilized?

[gaia.plateau]

Those loans are never getter paid back anyways so those strings attached mean little. Much of the money goes to buy palaces for the dictators while the people starve.

It means quite a lot when the countries and institutions which are largely in their pockets use the debt to subvert foreign and socioeconomic policy, and create a situation wherein the people are too desperate and suffering to fight back. And it's funny that you mention the palatial abodes of dictators... since in more cases than not, the countries giving the loans were the ones who either directly put those dictators in place, or directly created situations for the despotically inclined to take power.

People need to have the guts to hold Africans responsible for their own actions and stop making excuses for them. At what point in time do you stop blaming other people for all this? Rwanda, civilized?

Man, I'm glad you brought up Rwanda, you really couldn't have picked an easier case to argue.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Belgian and then German colonial overlords actually treated the inhabitants fairly well, that is to say that they didn't massacre them and rape them of their land, as was the practice in other parts of Africa. What they did do, was put the Tutsi up above the Hutu and Twa as overlords because they were cattle herders as opposed to farmers, and their features were slightly more "European". They did this through institutionalization of hierarchy. In point of fact, the Tutsi, Hutu and Twa peoples of Rwanda are not ethnically different in any authentic way. They speak the same language, practice the same religions, eat the same foods, share the same customs and reside in the same territory. Pre-colonial Rwanda was characterized by highly fluid ethnic distinctions and rapid social mobility, with the Tutsi tending to occupy the higher social class by merit of cattle herds; it was only after initial colonization when the Hutu went from being their agricultural neighbours to an assigned indigenous labour force.

In sum, the colonial powers took a small minority and gave them total political and socioeconomic power over the great majority.

They also, through example, taught the populace that violence and brutality were the first and best solutions to any problem. Following independence, tensions between the Tutsi, Hutu and Twa exacerbated from what they were during the colonial period. They engaged in 36 years of conflict, while Western powers and their former colonial masters sat idly by and dismissed it as "ethnic conflict". Almost 4 decades of warnings before the genocide and we did nothing - that's "civilized"?

The Hutu and Twa may have been the ones to let the machetes fall, but the former colonial powers of Rwanda are the ones that armed them, aimed them, and gave them motive, as well as nothing to do. Certainly it's easy to cast the blame at the first and most obvious targets we see, but that's the path of ignorance and repetition.

So to answer your question directly, "Rwanda, civilized?": as much as any other country on earth. They may be starving, desperate, and in no control of their own destinies, but you don't see them living in a cycle of deceit, self-deception and narcissism, or becoming overwhelmed with hatred when someone uses the words "Muslim" or "Socialist". Edited November 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Heelie]

The Hutu chopped their neighbors and school mates to pieces with machetes. What else matters? I am well read in the Rwandan Genocide and you gave a very accurate account of what lead up to it, but does that change anything? Belgians put them in a terrible situation, but they were not the ones dismembering family members. There is no excuse for genocide. The Hutu certainly had a motive but does that make it o.k. to you? Who is first and foremost responsible? The Hutus, because I don't check my morals at the door when examining exotic cultures. These were not children; they knew what they were doing just like the Nazis during the Holocaust or Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot and they should he held responsible for their actions.

[AKammenzind]

Just a clarification for those that aren't aware... the "aid money" that AK is talking about is actually "loan money" that must be paid back with unreasonable interest, and more importantly that comes with severe strings attached, such privatizing things like water and electricity to be owned and run by Western companies, and eliminating social programmes like schools and hospitals.

It's not all loaned to the governments, though a lot of it is. There is of course money, medical supplies, food, etc. that is being sent as aid... but that is pretty irrelevant seeing as none of it's going to be paid back in the foreseeable future anyhow, and just seems to add fuel to the fire.

Also, 100% of the violent conflict in Africa is directly resulting from colonial policies, as can be explained for any country in question by anyone with even the most basic understanding.

To say 100% is a little ridiculous as there always has been some level of tribal conflict in Africa, but I do agree that colonialism's legacy is a bunch of poorly thought-out states which have set the stage for most of these genocides and civil wars in Africa. The Africans in these countries really are responsible for their actions as well though, as there just is no excuse to hack someone's arm off because they're from a different ethnic group.

Some countries, like Tanzania and Egypt are doing fairly well, but the majority of Africa is incredibly corrupt. Still, do you blame the wolves for being wolves, or do you blame the people that let the wolves into the hen house?

The wolves do very often seem to end up in the hen house when we're talking about government; power attracts evil, and human stupidity opens the door.

And the use of the term "civilized world" in contrast to less developed countries such as those of Africa, would probably be offensive to a lot of people, but to the informed it is simply hilarious.

Was using it in response to a previous post, hense the quotations. Really, the word 'civilized' itself is pretty laughable.

Fake edit: also LoL at Sarah Palin sincerely believing Africa to be a country.

When I heard about that I actually blew snot all over my keyboard. Not that I was surprised, just that it was so ridiculously easy to believe... and the realization that she was actually close to being VP/President of the USA.

[gaia.plateau]

To say 100% is a little ridiculous as there always has been some level of tribal conflict in Africa, but I do agree that colonialism's legacy is a bunch of poorly thought-out states which have set the stage for most of these genocides and civil wars in Africa. The Africans in these countries really are responsible for their actions as well though, as there just is no excuse to hack someone's arm off because they're from a different ethnic group.

Fair enough; 99.9%.

Especially when you consider that violence doesn't always take the form of bullets and blades. Consider South Africa, for example, where private water corporations frequently withhold life-sustaining H20 from the impoverished black population if they can't afford to pay their obscene prices for it. (These are people often making below $1/day, and water costs about triple what it does in Canada). That's institutional violence, and it often does more damage to societal cohesion and peace than any number of kalashnikovs could.

And the use of the term "civilized world" in contrast to less developed countries such as those of Africa, would probably be offensive to a lot of people, but to the informed it is simply hilarious.

Was using it in response to a previous post, hense the quotations. Really, the word 'civilized' itself is pretty laughable.

Yar, that was in response to Heelie.

The Hutu chopped their neighbors and school mates to pieces with machetes. What else matters?

A sincere question... are you a creationist, by any chance? "God made everything 6 thousand years ago and hid fossils in the ground to fuck with our heads, what else matters?" What about diseases? "Hmmm it burns when I pee. Oh well, what else matters? I think I'll go have some unprotected sex". Do you feel that we should go back to blood letting and leeches?

If Isaac Newton had this attitude, he'd never have discovered gravity. If Cristobal Colon (Columbus) did, he'd never have discovered the Americas. If the Great Powers of the world following the Second World War didn't think about what else matters regarding the reasons Nazi Germany was able to establish so much power and attack other nations, they never would have formed the delightfully functional UN. If the Bush administration hadn't thought about what else matters, they would have illegally invaded a sovereign country, incited civil war and created a massive haven for terrorists that they couldn't extricate themselves from... oh wait.

Taking and accepting everything at face value and never bothering to question or investigate the root causes of things is akin to walking around with a blindfold over your eyes and plugs in your ears. In the context of African problems of violence, it is antithetical to both conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

I don't check my morals at the door when examining exotic cultures.

Which is why your understanding of issues like this is probably very limited. Morals = bias, and bias keeps you from any objective comprehension of truth.

These were not children; they knew what they were doing just like the Nazis during the Holocaust or Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot and they should he held responsible for their actions.

Actually, a lot of them were children, but that's beside the point. The regimes of Hitler and Pol Pot were not oppressed for 100 years by the people they killed. It is not analogous. Edited November 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

Double post. Broken forum! Edited November 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Heelie]

A sincere question... are you a creationist, by any chance? "God made everything 6 thousand years ago and hid fossils in the ground to fuck with our heads, what else matters?" What about diseases? "Hmmm it burns when I pee. Oh well, what else matters? I think I'll go have some unprotected sex". Do you feel that we should go back to blood letting and leeches?

If Isaac Newton had this attitude, he'd never have discovered gravity. If Cristobal Colon (Columbus) did, he'd never have discovered the Americas. If the Great Powers of the world following the Second World War didn't think about what else matters regarding the reasons Nazi Germany was able to establish so much power and attack other nations, they never would have formed the delightfully functional UN. If the Bush administration hadn't thought about what else matters, they would have illegally invaded a sovereign country, incited civil war and created a massive haven for terrorists that they couldn't extricate themselves from... oh wait.

Taking and accepting everything at face value and never bothering to question or investigate the root causes of things is akin to walking around with a blindfold over your eyes and plugs in your ears. In the context of African problems of violence, it is antithetical to both conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

I'm an atheist. Your examples are not even remotely similar to the matter at hand. This is more like it. A jury is deciding on a murder trial in which the defendant admitted to killing a group of people. I'd say we should punish him considering his life was not in danger, there is no excuse for what he did. You seem to think the jury should actively search for a reason to blame someone else. If the man was black in America during the 1920's, an oppression human being, and he killed white men and women, would you accept that as a good enough reason not to hold him responsible? Genocide is never justified. Even though the Hutu were treated like shit, they were in control when they decided to eradicate their competition.

Which is why your understanding of issues like this is probably very limited. Morals = bias, and bias keeps you from any objective comprehension of truth.

The world is governed by morals. The truth is the Hutu were justified in slaughtering 100,000 men, women, and children because they were oppressed for 100 years? The truth is the people who severed infants with machetes are not to blame for their own actions?

Actually, a lot of them were children, but that's beside the point. The regimes of Hitler and Pol Pot were not oppressed for 100 years by the people they killed. It is not analogous.

Yes, but they all thought they had good motives. Did the Tutsi children play a major role in their oppression decades before they were born? If using morals to judge others is biased and will never lead us to the truth, why not sympathize with Hitler? Without morals we would not be able to classify him as a bad person.

[gaia.plateau]

You're trying to understand this issue but you just don't have the tools to do so.

It's not about blame, or justification, or morality, or sympathy. It's about understanding the reasons for violent conflict and doing whatever is possible to avoid it in the future.

You're applying primitive American judicial logic to a case that is infinitely more complicated, and just what good do you surmise that it could possibly do? Are you going to call for 100-250 thousand Hutu and Twa to be jailed or executed, or are you just going to stand on a soap box shouting about how evil the Hutu and Twa are? Because there really isn't a third option.

Your examples are not even remotely similar to the matter at hand.

You misconstrued the analogies I presented. They were to help you to gain perception of your attitude, not the situation in Rwanda. Edited November 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Heelie]

Also, 100% of the violent conflict in Africa is directly resulting from colonial policies

This is what I'm arguing, the excuses people make for why Africa is such an unstable place by treating them like children who don't know any better. I don't know why you think this has anything to do with preventing future violence; I've been arguing the same topic this whole time.

[AKammenzind]

Got my dillies on a pepatain!

[gaia.plateau]

Also, 100% of the violent conflict in Africa is directly resulting from colonial policies

This is what I'm arguing, the excuses people make for why Africa is such an unstable place by treating them like children who don't know any better. I don't know why you think this has anything to do with preventing future violence; I've been arguing the same topic this whole time.

You're either intentionally or unintentionally confusing excuses with explanations. Please make the necessary adjustments.

Got my dillies on a pepatain!

I am sooooo fucking drunk, and this confused me so much that I almost fell out of my chair. I should go vomit now. Cheers. Edited November 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau