Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Africans a-Liberate Zimbabwe, Yeah
Zimbabwe voters went to the polls on Saturday. It's Tuesday, and there's still no winner. While opposition parties are racking up more seats and votes than any time since 2000, it's impossible not to conclude that Robert Mugabe's thugs are massaging the count. But so far, that's not enough.
Zimbabwe's ruling party today privately conceded that Robert Mugabe had lost the first round of the presidential election to the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
But Mugabe's Zanu-PF party said a second round would be needed as Tsvangirai had failed to clinch the necessary 51% of the vote to win outright, according to Reuters.
Even if you're rigging it, how can you win re-election in a country with 100,000 percent inflation and a 20 percent employment rate? Propaganda helps.
President Mugabe became the talk of the world and has been condemned for merely doing what is best for his people.
Tsvangirai globetrotted asking for sanctions and persuading the whole world to stop aid to Zimbabwe.
The economy was sabotaged, we have hit hard times, people are struggling to make ends meet, decent meals have disappeared from our tables and the future looks very uncertain.
Morgan Tsvangirai has been on cloud nine dreaming that the hardships will propel the electorate to turn to him as the Messiah.
We are not fools.
Damn, they're on to us! We must be making this up, too.
A senior diplomatic source who received accounts from two people privy to the JOC meeting said it discussed shutting down the count and Mugabe declaring himself re-elected or the army stepping in to declare martial law on the pretext of defending the country from instability caused by the opposition claiming victory.
"In the JOC meeting there were two options for Mugabe: to declare victory on Sunday or declare martial law," said the diplomat. "They did not consider conceding. We understand Mugabe nearly decided to declare victory. Cooler heads prevailed. It was decided to use the [election commission] process of drip, drip where you release results over a long period, giving the opposition gains at first but as time wears on Zanu-PF pulls ahead."
More reason on Zimbabwe here.
|4.1.08 @ 9:11AM|#
The economy was sabotaged, we have hit hard times, people
are struggling to make ends meet, decent meals have disappeared
from our tables and the future looks very uncertain.
Four more years! Four more years!
Episiarch|4.1.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Morgan Tsvangirai has been on cloud nine dreaming that the
hardships will propel the electorate to turn to him as the
Messiah.
YES WE CAN!
|4.1.08 @ 9:15AM|#
It seems Africa cannot produce one stable,prosperous country.I have no idea why.All the basics are there.Natural resources,industrious people.I'm at a loss.
robc|4.1.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Mugabe is Chavez with a head start.
All the basics are there.Natural resources,industrious
people.I'm at a loss.
Rule of Law. You dont resources or industrious people if you have
that. Well, they probably help.
Episiarch|4.1.08 @ 9:20AM|#
It seems Africa cannot produce one stable,prosperous
country. I have no idea why.
Tribalism? Endless retreads of failed socialist policies? Massive
corruption? Tons of foreign aid that fuels said corruption? Trade
protectionism in the US and Europe closing off markets?
There are plenty of reasons.
|4.1.08 @ 9:34AM|#
"Rule of law?"
Yes, but why?
Under the colonial project, the Europeans purposely uprooted the
existing political and social structures in order to replace them
with "superior, enlightened" European ones. They took care of the
first part pretty well, but not so much with the second.
Then, when they left, the structures they left behind were too 1)
culturally foreign 2) illegitimate in the eyes of the public and,
therefore, 3) too fragile to stand on their own.
So those went, too, leaving strongmen as the remaining viable
political system - strongmen who could harken back to the
pre-colonial system, but who weren't operating within the
complicated, interdependent web of social, economic, religious, and
political relationships that had grown up in Africa over millennia.
Throw in some Soviet meddling, including the infection of the
indepdendence ideology with revolutionary socialism, and the
situation gets even worse. And then throw in an American response
that made parts of the continent a Cold War battlefield, and here
we are.
You still see defenses of colonialism in organs like National
Review. It's funny, because they so often refer to the "wisdom of
the ages" and the folly of utopians who arrogantly try to impose
"scientific" models without adequate humility in the face of the
society that has grown up organically. Yet, when they talk about
imperialism, that all goes out the window, and they sound like
Robert Moses, out to replace the "slums" with the Radiant City.
|4.1.08 @ 9:44AM|#
joe - I SO want to disagree with you, because it's fun. But your
last explanation makes it difficult. So... in the interest of
finding something we can disagree on, what would you recommend as a
fix? Forget the fingerpointing and the past. Let's say you were in
charge of the world. What would you recommend to help Zimbabwe, and
all of Africa, to share in the bounty that is available?
CB
|4.1.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Some of them have.
It's just that "small, poor country experiences peace and steady
growth" doesn't typically run on Page 1.
"Country You've Never Heard Of Re-elects Prime Minister" vs.
"Skinny White Woman Missing in Texas"
robc|4.1.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Colonialism worked on the North American continent.
That is the only defense of colonialism I would ever attempt to
give. Actually, I guess I should change it to "English colonialism
worked on the NA continent".
Hmmm, whats the difference between NA and Africa? It might be that
colonialism works better if you make your best effort to make the
indigenous people a minority.
Imperialist|4.1.08 @ 9:48AM|#
We just need to replace all those black people with white and yellow people, then the continent will run flawlessly.
|4.1.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Cracker's Boy,
Jeez. I imagine it's different for every country, maybe every
region of every country.
I don't think formulating a grand strategy is the way to go
here.
Stable, competent governance and many, many small-scale projects
carefully tailored to local conditions - wells, roads, schools,
modern sewers, farming equipment...
The only big ideas I feel comfortable supporting are 1) lotsa money
for health clinics and 2) end agricultural subsidies in the
developed world.
|4.1.08 @ 9:51AM|#
robc,
Colonialism worked on the North American continent.
That's because the Europeans didn't just replace the governing
structures, but the people as well.
|4.1.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Hold it Joe,
So you are going to tell me that pre-colonial Africa was any better
than today? I know it feeds into your Western self loathing
instincts to blame this all on the West, but that is not the case.
First, you are correct in pointing out the evils of colonialism. Of
course, those very same evils were present in a lot of places
beyond Africa. No country in Africa was victimized by both the cold
war and colonialism more than Korea, yet South Korea seems to do
just fine. Most of SE Asia was also victimized by colonialism. You
think the British and Belgium were bad in Africa, read about the
Dutch and French in SE Asia sometime. What about Vietnam? They were
colonized by the French, suffered through a 10,000 day civil war
that was escalated by the US and USSR during the cold war, ended up
being completely victimized by a "revolutionary socialist
government" and yet today is better off than any country in
sub-Saharan Africa. The whole "it is all colonialism and the cold
war's fault" just doesn't cut it for Africa. Africa suffered no
worse than many other parts of the world yet is worse off today
than it was under colonialism. As bad as Rhodesia was, it still
beats Zimbabwe under Mugabe.
|4.1.08 @ 9:53AM|#
joe,
...the Europeans purposely uprooted the existing political and
social structures...
That depended on the structure in question. Sometimes European
powers (as colonizers have doen throughtout the ages) exaggerated
the nature of particular structures.
Anyway, as with any human society there were plenty of
dysfunctional (or at least less than ideal) attributes to various
African states prior to colonization.
strongmen who could harken back to the pre-colonial system, but who
weren't operating within the complicated, interdependent web of
social, economic, religious, and political relationships that had
grown up in Africa over millennia.
It should be noted that in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries that
at least in West Africa that generally the most successful states
(at least from the standpoint of geographic expansion) were those
which conquered and and as often as not enslaved their neighbors.
Now a lot of this warfare was fueled by the export of slaves of
course, and that's where both European and the Middle Eastern slave
trade plays its terrible part.
robc|4.1.08 @ 9:54AM|#
joe,
That's because the Europeans didn't just replace the governing
structures, but the people as well.
Didnt I say that? Oh wait, yes I did:
"It might be that colonialism works better if you make your best
effort to make the indigenous people a minority."
|4.1.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Colonialism worked on the North American
continent.
I would say it worked reasonably well in India and Hong Kong, as
well. The transition from colonialism in India was pretty rough,
and the Muslim bits aren't doing so well, but India proper is not
doing so bad these days.
For that matter, there are a number of South American countries
that are reasonably functional.
|4.1.08 @ 9:59AM|#
BTW, this decade has so far been pretty good for Africa as a whole from the standpoint of economic growth.
|4.1.08 @ 9:59AM|#
One other point about South America and colonialism. First, the Europeans did not replace the people in Central and South America. There were a lot of indigenous people left there even after disease and the like took its toll. The indigenous populations intermarried with the European colonial populations. The people were still there. As far as the governing entities, most of South America suffered through long brutal guerilla wars of independence with Spain that did untold damage to their social and political structures. One of the great breaks America got was that the British quit and went home and did not force the US to have a prolonged gorilla war for independence. South America is still paying the price for those wars today. But while South America is not the US or Europe, it is still a lot better than Africa even though it probably has just as much of an excuse to fail.
|4.1.08 @ 10:00AM|#
You astound me, John. You can read all of that, and all you get
out of it is "hate Whitey."
Moron.
robc|4.1.08 @ 10:02AM|#
joe has a point about some small countries doing well, so I went
down the list of GDP per capita to find the highest in Africa and
see how they are doing politically and otherwise.
Equitorial Guinea - $44,100 - "president" seized power in a coup in
1979. It doesnt sound like much of their recently discovered oil
money actually gets down to the people. A problem nation with oil.
Like the Middle East and Venezuela in 2018.
Botswana - $14,700 - this is Africa's success story. And they have
lots of problems, with the 2nd highest AIDS rate in the world. They
were a British colony, which while no means a guarantee, does seem
to help things out.
Gabon - $13,800 - two "presidents" since 1960. This quote says a
lot: Despite political conditions, a small population, abundant
natural resources, and considerable foreign support have helped
make Gabon one of the more prosperous and stable African
countries. They border Equitorial Guinea.
|4.1.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Yeah Joe I write two paragraphs explaining why Asia and South America were just as much the victims of colonialism than Africa yet haven't failed so spectacularly, and all you can do is call me names. If you have no cogent response to a point, why don't you just admit as much and move on? Why do you have to revert to name calling?
|4.1.08 @ 10:06AM|#
BTW, from the standpoint of natural resources, Africa as a whole is not that rich in many areas. The relatively poor soils on much of the continent is one example.
|4.1.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Calidore,
Sometimes European powers (as colonizers have doen throughtout
the ages) exaggerated the nature of particular
structures.
Sure, but in such a case - the elevation of a particular local
power over competing powers, where there had formerly been a
balance of powers being a common example - the effect is still to
replace what had previously existed with a very different political
structure. It's still a tearing down of the fabric of the
indigineous society. It's comparable to tearing up every plant in
20 acres of jungle except one species of fruit tree in order to
create an orchard. The fact that it's a local species of tree that
grew on its own doesn't change the fact that you've replaced a
natural ecosystem with monoculture.
Anyway, as with any human society there were plenty of
dysfunctional (or at least less than ideal) attributes to various
African states prior to colonization. Of course.
The less I take from this is that, even in the face of a bad
system, it's not enough just to tear down. You need to build up,
because you can most certainly make things worse.
|4.1.08 @ 10:07AM|#
"I would say it worked reasonably well in India and Hong Kong,
as well. The transition from colonialism in India was pretty rough,
and the Muslim bits aren't doing so well, but India proper is not
doing so bad these days."
Even Pakistan is doing better than Zimbabwe. Pakistan has a very
educated population and vibrant immigrant communities all over the
West. Yes, the NW tribal areas are pretty isolated and crazy, but
those areas were isolated and crazy long before the British got
there. For not having any oil and being stuck with the disease of
Islamic fundementalism, Pakistan is not doing that badly. It
certainly does no worse than a lot of other Islamic countries.
|4.1.08 @ 10:09AM|#
In the grand chessboard of foreign policy(shout out to Zbig), it is imperatvie above all else to maintain a balance of power between those who we could potentially find ourselves in competition with for resources. Thus, the crucial building block of a sucessful society is a well defined and enforced individual right to one's property,most importantly including ones self and the product of ones labor. In order to keep any nation from rising up and becoming a threat to the established balanced of power it is good to just keep supporting leaders who believe in some variation of destroying property rights for the masses. They can sell their ideology under socialism or marxism or the third way....as long as they support ridiculous ideas they will get support from the UN and other international organizations and we will be succesful in keeping any new threats arising to challenge our power monopoly.
|4.1.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Don't care, John. Your bullshit about "self-loathing" makes it clear you're incapable of seeing this as anything but a proxy for your domestic partisanship, so I'm going to deal with people who bring more to the table.
|4.1.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Africa's problems are complex, and many of them have nothing to
do with colonialism. I note parenthetically that "many" doesn't
mean "all".
A good, if somewhat dated book on the subject is David Lamb's
The Africans.
If an American--white or black--moves to an African nation and
becomes a citizen, does that make him an American-African? Do they
have such a thing?
|4.1.08 @ 10:12AM|#
"The less I take from this is that, even in the face of a bad
system, it's not enough just to tear down. You need to build up,
because you can most certainly make things worse."
At some point the people themselves have to do that. We can't do it
for them. South Korea is a great example of this. In 1953, the
country had just been leveled by a war and was run by a two bit US
backed right wing strong man. The Koreans got the blunt end of
every ill possible in the 20th Century. Look at where they are
today. I wish you were right. I wish the problem in Africa was just
a product of history. If it were, you could fix it with the right
aid. But it is a problem with the societies there. Sadly, there is
no way to fix a society.
|4.1.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Joe,
You have no sense of humor. You cannot take any sort of sarcasm or
humor. Get over yourself.
|4.1.08 @ 10:14AM|#
At some point the people themselves have to do that. We
can't do it for them.
Would have a been a nice insight to have in 2002.
Or back during the colonial era, when so many "enlightened"
westerners decided they were going to "fix" Africa.
|4.1.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Sure, John, I'm just the guy who started the thread with a
joke.
Knock knock
Who's there?
YOU HATE WHITE PEOPLE!
Whattsamatter, baby, can't you take a joke?
Gee, that IS funny.
|4.1.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Pro,
Some of them certainly do relate to colonialism. The problem is
that the problems that do not relate to colonialism has prevented
Africa from fixing the ones that do. At this point, the best thing
the US could do would be to completely open our markets to African
goods and stop handing out billions in aid to prop up corrupt
governments and hope that the Africans can solve their own
problems. I don't see how our aid and meddling is doing anything
but making Africa dependent and unable to deal with their own
problems.
joe|4.1.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Or back during the colonial era, when so many "enlightened"
westerners decided they were going to "fix" Africa.
Where were the African Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine,
Patrick Henry, George Washington, etc etc who were willing to
overthrow a bunch of European masters and handle it themselves? Did
Botswana get them all?
|4.1.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Joe,
I didn't say you hated white people, I said you have Western Self
Loathing and have a tendency to blame every problem on Europe and
America, which you kind of do. But a lot of people do.
Nobody|4.1.08 @ 10:22AM|#
John,
Is there a country in South or Central America that isn't a corrupt
shithole? Even the ones that are majority Euro (such as Argentina)
are bad. This is because the colonizers were lazy papist Spaniards,
instead of industrious Brits.
|4.1.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Anyway, here is hoping that things turn out well in
Zimbabwe.
Pro Libertate,
In a number of ways I think that much of the problem is associated
with the damage caused by the prevelance of slavery both
domestically and as an export. For example, for several hundred
years both bright minds and able bodies were stripped from Africa
by slave exportation, which couldn't have been terribly good for
the development of the areas they were stripped from. Second, it
more than likely created at least some internal dysfunctions which
echoed into the future.
Neu Mejican|4.1.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Where were the African Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas
Paine, Patrick Henry, George Washington, etc etc who were willing
to overthrow a bunch of European masters and handle it themselves?
Did Botswana get them all?
Cotton fields in Georgia?
robc|4.1.08 @ 10:27AM|#
NM,
Cotton fields in Georgia?
I considered that, but if so, Georgia would be a much better
place.
|4.1.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Piss off, John.
Dude who put "joe" into the name field,
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry,
George Washington were all highly educated people from rich
families - part of a cultural elite that was tied into the English
elite. Our "revolution" consisted of a segment of British society
striking out on its own. Whereas in Africa, that stratum of society
were the "loyalists" who fought against indepdendence. Where was
the African George Washington? Fighting on the side of the
redcoats, he got run off when they lost. This is part of the
consequence of the British "replacing the locals" with Europeans in
North America, as opposed to how colonialism worked in Africa and
South America.
You think George Washington overthrew a "master?" Dude, George
Washington WAS a master!
|4.1.08 @ 10:30AM|#
"For example, for several hundred years both bright minds and
able bodies were stripped from Africa by slave exportation, which
couldn't have been terribly good for the development of the areas
they were stripped from. Second, it more than likely created at
least some internal dysfunctions which echoed into the
future."
I think there is some truth in that explanation especially when you
consider the contributions that former slave populations have made
to other countries.
What is so frustraiting about Africa is that the rest of the world
could actually do some good if they would just stop doing harm.
Regardless of what your opinion of history is, Africa was the
victim of colonialism and Europe does have some duty to try to help
it and America ought to help as well since we benefited from
slavery. Why can't the world take this "white man's burden" so to
speak and instead of throwing money at the problem just make Africa
into a world free trade zone? Make any product made in Africa free
to enter any market in the world duty free. Do that and then get
out of Africa's internal politics and stop telling them not to use
GM crops and DDT and let them do what they feel is best for their
own people. That wouldn't solve every problem but it would be a
start.
|4.1.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Our "revolution" consisted of a segment of British society
striking out on its own.'
I should say, a VERTICAL segment, a slice that included people from
every socio-economic strata of society, including the institutional
elite in the colonies as an institution. There was little in the
way of class war in the American revolution.
Whereas in Africa, it was the bottom vs. the top.
Imperialist|4.1.08 @ 10:31AM|#
This is part of the consequence of the British "replacing
the locals" with Europeans in North America, as opposed to how
colonialism worked in Africa and South America.
Like I said, we just need to replace all those black people with
white and yellow people, then the continent will run
flawlessly.
|4.1.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Jeez Joe, good thing you are not defense about being accused of having Western self loathing or anything. Also, who cares the Washington was the master? Who ever said that only elite white guys are capable of running effective revolutions or starting good governments?
Imperialist|4.1.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Let us not forget that the British did a pretty good job of replacing the locals in Australia and New Zealand as well.
|4.1.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Yes, imagine that, people don't like it when you accuse them of
racism as a debating tactic.
Shocking.
|4.1.08 @ 10:36AM|#
joe,
Thomas Paine was not from a rich family. His father was a corset
maker. I don't think that Patrick Henry came from a particularly
august background either.
|4.1.08 @ 10:41AM|#
"Thomas Paine was not from a rich family. His father was a
corset maker. I don't think that Patrick Henry came from a
particularly august background either."
But they were all British and considered themselves British
citizens who were doing nothing more than demanding their rights as
such. The American Revolution was viewed by those who created it as
not a revolution but a restoration of their God given rights as
British subjects that had been denied them. This is in sharp
contrast to the French Revolution where the idea was not to restore
an ideal but to throw the entire system out and replace it with a
new one. That is one of the reasons why the American Revolution was
so much more successful and less bloody than the French one.
Neu Mejican|4.1.08 @ 10:42AM|#
So back to the topic.
Assuming that power is handed over, what does the new
administration do to help heal Zimbabwe's injuries?
robc|4.1.08 @ 10:44AM|#
joe,
That was me. Meant to type a response to you obviously.
You think George Washington overthrew a "master?" Dude, George
Washington WAS a master!
You can be both. GW was a middlemaster.
Americans had loyalists too. Africa had blacks that were part of
the educated elite, Mugabe for one. Also, if the "African George
Washington" was fighting against the revolution, maybe thats
because, in this case, the colonial powers were the good guys. I
know the Zimbabwe government post-colony and pre-Mugabe did a
better job than Mugabe has done. Not that that is a tough
standard.
As an aside, Thomas Paine's father was a corset maker in a small
rural town. Not an elite. He went to school from about age 7-12, so
I wouldnt necessarily call him well educated either. He also wasnt
really much of a colonist, not arriving in PA until 1774.
|4.1.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Calidore,
They were not impoverished, illiterate farmers, or members of the
urban poor, either.
My point is that the leaership - and not just the top few guys,
like in Vietnam or Haiti - were people whose background and status
allowed them to have an understanding of politics and events beyond
the provincial level. This was a big reason why our revolution did
a good job avoiding the utopian trap.
|4.1.08 @ 10:50AM|#
"Assuming that power is handed over, what does the new
administration do to help heal Zimbabwe's injuries?"
He will never hand over power. Mugabe has long passed the point
where his crimes are so great that he would never be allowed to
live in peace if he left power. He leaves the Presidency in a box
or at the end of a rope. That is why this is going to get worse
before it gets better.
robc|4.1.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Assuming that power is handed over, what does the new
administration do to help heal Zimbabwe's injuries?
Nothing.
First do no harm should be the cardinal rule of government, not
just medicine.
|4.1.08 @ 10:50AM|#
robc,
You can be both. GW was a middlemaster.
George Washington was the richest man in Virginia, maybe in the
entire British North America. If he was "middlemaster," so was
every duke and earl in Blighty.
Americans had loyalists too. Yes, they did, but this
loyalist cadre did not command the loyalty of all, or even almost
all, of the educated, professional classes.
Africa had blacks that were part of the educated elite, Mugabe
for one. Yes, but far fewer, which affected the character of
the revolution. Idi Amin, for example, was a sergeant.
maybe thats because, in this case, the colonial powers were the
good guys. Good guys/bad guys is a juvenile, useless way to
understand history. History and politics workthe same way for the
people you sympathize with as for the people you don't.
As an aside, Thomas Paine's father was a corset maker in a
small rural town. Not an elite. He went to school from about age
7-12, so I wouldnt necessarily call him well educated either. He
also wasnt really much of a colonist, not arriving in PA until
1774.
He also didn't play much of a role in designing or running the new
Republican government.
Africa had plenty of Thomas Paines. It was the Washingtons and
Jeffersons it lacked.
|4.1.08 @ 10:55AM|#
"Africa had blacks that were part of the educated elite, Mugabe
for one. Yes, but far fewer, which affected the character of the
revolution. Idi Amin, for example, was a sergeant."
Jefferson and Washington were products of the 17th Century
enlightenment. Pol Pot, Amin, Ho, and the like were products of
20th Century Western nihilism and utopianism. All of the 20th
Century revolutionaries were educated in the West and inculcated
with all of the West's sicknesses and immediately went back home to
infect others. In that sense, maybe you are right Joe, maybe it is
the West's fault. Pol Pot didn't come up year zero and the like
living in the Cambodian jungle. He came up with it while being
educated in France.
Neu Mejican|4.1.08 @ 11:00AM|#
robc,
Assuming that power is handed over, what does the new
administration do to help heal Zimbabwe's injuries?
Nothing.
So your advice to the new adminstration would be to maintain Robert
Mugabe's policies?
Really?
Sorry, unless you are advocating they dissolve the government
completely, nothing is not an option.
The new government will have policies.
Doing nothing means leaving things how they are.
Doing something means changing things.
That can include getting rid of policies that are harmful.
|4.1.08 @ 11:05AM|#
joe,
I must disagree with you. Our revolution worked because we were 80%
of the way there. We had a significant middle class, established
rule of law and property rights, a common language (for the most
part), a more or less common culture and religion, etc. The moral
and intellectual force of the Enlightenment was also a major part
of our revolution--a unifying belief system that is absent today,
particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.
While many of the principal Founders were well-heeled, they weren't
the only people driving the Revolution. The odd meme that travels
about that our revolution was an elitist one is largely
incorrect.
Neu Mejican|4.1.08 @ 11:05AM|#
And just to add some perspective on the impact of colonialism
and its impact on various regions of the world.
In 1900 we have this
Percentage Controlled by colonial power
Africa-90.4%
Polynesia-98.9%
Asia-56.5%
Australia-100.0%
Americas-27.2%
So equating Africa with Asia is not really a fair comparison,
imho.
The Democratic Republican|4.1.08 @ 11:06AM|#
how is joe so f-ing annoying even when he's right? he's taught me new meaning about bleeding heart liberals.
|4.1.08 @ 11:08AM|#
John,
But they were all British and considered themselves British
citizens who were doing nothing more than demanding their rights as
such.
The agendas varied quite a bit; which is why John Adams viewed
Paine as far too radical. Indeed, I don't think Paine viewed the
matter as one of merely defending British rights. So there really
wasn't one singular viewpoint amongst the revolutionaries on the
issue.
As for comparing the French and American revolutions I don't know
if they are all that analagous.
robc|4.1.08 @ 11:08AM|#
joe,
If he was "middlemaster," so was every duke and earl in
Blighty.
Nope, this was my point. No matter how rich he was, in British
society he was below every dirt poor earl or lord. He may have been
a high middlemaster, but without a title, that was all he was going
to be.
Yes, they did, but this loyalist cadre did not command the
loyalty of all, or even almost all, of the educated, professional
classes.
And that is the question. What is the difference, why did the
african professionals all support the loyalists? Maybe they foresaw
what kind of government the revolutionaries were going to put in
place?
Africa had plenty of Thomas Paines.
Got any links to the african "Common Sense"?
robc|4.1.08 @ 11:11AM|#
NM,
Okay, for a more serious answer, I propose they eliminate all laws
except those against murder, theft and fraud. Implement a small
sales tax to pay for the police and courts and issueing land deeds.
Other than that, get the hell out of the peoples way and see what
happens.
|4.1.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Pro Libertate,
Given the level of loyalist sympathy during the American Revolution
one should first ask why there wasn't much in the way of a civil
war following on the heels of the war's end.
|4.1.08 @ 11:11AM|#
"The agendas varied quite a bit; which is why John Adams viewed
Paine as far too radical. Indeed, I don't think Paine viewed the
matter as one of merely defending British rights."
Paine was much more of a radical and was much better liked in
France and if I am not mistaken moved to revolutionary France later
in life. The analogy between the American Revolution and the French
one is that the French went one step further than the American one.
They actually followed the advice of Paine and the radicals of the
American Revolution and really did try to rebuild government from
the ground up.
|4.1.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Still can't get beyond "Hate Whitey." Poor John.
Jefferson and Washington were products of the 17th Century
enlightenment. So was Robbespierre. Fail.
BakedPenguin|4.1.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Neu - well, they could stop printing money like Milton Bradley.
Weigel underestimated inflation a bit; the IMF says it's actually
150,000%,
about the same as Weimar Germany. But I don't think Zimbabwe will
be able to get hard currency exporting expressionist films and
schnapps.
Although it's probably going to be politically unpopular, the MDC
(if it gets the chance) will have to consider (at least a partial)
reversal of the land seizures.
|4.1.08 @ 11:12AM|#
"Given the level of loyalist sympathy during the American
Revolution one should first ask why there wasn't much in the way of
a civil war following on the heels of the war's end."
Because they were able to move to Canada. A huge number of
loyalists left the US for Canada at the end of the war which
effectively eliminated any danger of a civil war.
|4.1.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Pro Libertate,
Our revolution worked because we were 80% of the way
there. We were 80% there because the relationship between the
mother country and the residents of the colonies was quite
different. The residents of the American colonies were, in the eyes
of the Brits, no different than residents of England. As opposed
to, say, Brazil, where most of the residents were slaves or poor
natives, and viewed as quite unequal.
And you are misstating my position if you describe it as "elitist."
As I said upthread, the educated leadership wasn't just an elite
fringe at the top. There were middle-class, educated people who
were in a position to see beyond their own fields and work at all
levels.
I don't think we're in disagreement here.
|4.1.08 @ 11:17AM|#
John,
The vast majority of loyalists did not move to Canada. They stayed
in the communities which they were born in.
Thomas Paine|4.1.08 @ 11:17AM|#
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her--Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.
|4.1.08 @ 11:17AM|#
"Jefferson and Washington were products of the 17th Century
enlightenment. So was Robbespierre. Fail."
Robbespierrre was a thug and a lunatic. He hardly counts as an
actual thinker. In many ways Marx was a product of the Enlightment
as well. Was the French Revolution the product of the Enlightment?
Yes, the Enlightenment taken to its logical extreme. Washington and
Jefferson were in the end too conservative to go all the way in the
way the French Revolution did. Indeed, they were called out as such
by the French Revolutionaries themselves. But as bad the someone
like Robbespierrre or Moreau was, they were amateurs compared to
Mao and Pot and the Amin who were infected by post enlightment
thinking.
|4.1.08 @ 11:21AM|#
robc,
No matter how rich he was, in British society he was below
every dirt poor earl or lord. He may have been a high middlemaster,
but without a title, that was all he was going to be.
OK, but how is this relevant? My point was that Washington was a
wealthy, educated person who'd already held a position of
responsibility and had familiarity with governance.
What is the difference, why did the african professionals all
support the loyalists? Because it was in their interest to do
so. The white elites in colonial Africa were kept in power by the
colonial system, and the nationalist movements were also
anti-plantation movements. In America, that wasn't true - both the
old government and the vision for the new were very protective of
the established economic order.
Got any links to the african "Common Sense"?
I'm sure you can find the writings of African revolutionaries if
you're really interested.
|4.1.08 @ 11:22AM|#
"If it hadn't been for the more than 40,000 colonialists who
moved north during and immediately after the war, much of the area
from Ontario east might have fallen into the hands of the United
States in the War of 1812. After all, about 80 percent of Canada's
population at the time of that war had been born in the United
States. "
http://www.familytreemagazine.com/articles/aug03/loyal.html
40,000 is a lot for the time. Also, it is safe to assume those were
the most militant ones and the ones most likly to cause
trouble.
BakedPenguin|4.1.08 @ 11:22AM|#
I become more and more convinced that natural resources are an
impediment to the growth of third world economies. Because
tapping that wealth is so relatively easy, it provides a situation
where the guy with the guns can just come in and steal everything
all at once. It also takes a lot less intelligence to continue to
run.
Countries like South Korea, Singapore, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Ireland, Taiwan, Costa Rica did not and do not really have much in
the way of natural resources. They have become (relatively) wealthy
by promoting policies that encourage wealth building. Or rather, by
getting out of the way.
|4.1.08 @ 11:23AM|#
John,
BTW, if the vast majority of loyalists had left then the U.S. would
have been dispossessed of approximately 1/3 of its
population.
Whatever else one might say about him, Robespierre was quite a
bright and talented man.
|4.1.08 @ 11:26AM|#
John,
Also, it is safe to assume those were the most militant ones
and the ones most likly to cause trouble.
Or they were simply the ones with the most tenuous ties to the
former colonies. There are a number of plausible explanations for
their behavior.
BakedPenguin|4.1.08 @ 11:26AM|#
One other point I wanted to make was that having a great deal of wealth in natural resources makes it unnecessary for the strongarms to have any kind of developed economy.
Neu Mejican|4.1.08 @ 11:27AM|#
robc, Bakedpenguin,
Those both sound like reasonable stances.
I wonder about the implementation of land seizure reversals.
The details of how to implement that kind of thing would be hard to
work out. The government screwed somebody in the past, but now they
have to screw someone in the present to unscrew the first
screwee...
I think they would be better off getting rid of policies that try
to control who owns land, and let the market figure it out. If the
rich successful farmer who had land seized want to return and buy
back their land/lease from the new owners, let them. Creating a
favorable environment for that to happen would seem, to me, to be
the best policy.
|4.1.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Robbespierrre was a thug and a lunatic. He hardly counts as
an actual thinker.
If there's one thing you should have learned from the 20th century,
John, it's that "thug and lunatic" and "thinker" are not
mutually-exclusive categories. Robbespierre, as a matter of fact,
was one of the most respected attornies in France prior to the
Revolution, and walked around with a copy of "The Rights of Man"
under his arm.
Washington and Jefferson were in the end too conservative to go
all the way in the way the French Revolution did. And in the
American revolution, people like Washington and Jefferson ended up
the leaders and the founders of the government, while the racial
utopianists were pushed aside and had little say about how the new
government would form. As opposed to France, and to many
post-colonial African states.
Now, why was this? I suspect that it had to do with the class
makeup of the societies and the revolutionary movements - as Pro
Lib says, the fact that we were "80% there," with our big middle
class and much more widespread basic education.
|4.1.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Calidore,
According to Wikipedia 5% of the population left after the
Revolution.
For roughly five percent of the inhabitants of the United States,
defeat was followed by exile. Approximately 100,000 United Empire
Loyalists left the newly founded republic, most settling in the
remaining British colonies in North America, such as the Province
of Quebec (concentrating in the Eastern Townships), Prince Edward
Island, and Nova Scotia. The new colonies of Upper Canada (now
Ontario) and New Brunswick were created by Britain for their
benefit.[35]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
That is a lot of people. If you consider that the young, able
bodied and most militant were also be the most likly to leave, I
think the migration greatly reduced the chances of an
insurection.
|4.1.08 @ 11:28AM|#
The African success stories are disproportionately in the tiny island nations: Mauritius, Seychelles.... even Cape Verde to some point.
robc|4.1.08 @ 11:30AM|#
joe,
In America, that wasn't true - both the old government and the
vision for the new were very protective of the established economic
order.
I agree with you here. And this may be the key point. There was
nothing (well, not much, especially in the English colonies) wrong
with the established economic order. Overthowing imperialists =
good. Overthrowing a sensible economic system = bad. Without
researching it, Im guessing the "revolutionaries" in Botswana kept
the economic system basically intact. Which is why they have been
growing for 40 years now.
|4.1.08 @ 11:32AM|#
"Now, why was this? I suspect that it had to do with the class
makeup of the societies and the revolutionary movements - as Pro
Lib says, the fact that we were "80% there," with our big middle
class and much more widespread basic education."
I think it was that America was lucky in its revolutionaries.
France had a big middle class to. As you point out Robbespierrre
was an attorney and anything but poor. The leaders of the French
Revolution were middle and upper class. They were, unlike
Washington and Jefferson, utterly mad. The French Revolution is
similiar to the Russian Revolution in that a small revolutionary
van guard were able to take over and terrorize the country. Had
Washington been a lunatic and felt the need, my guess is he could
have done the same thing here.
robc|4.1.08 @ 11:35AM|#
John Adams basically predicted the results of the French Revolution. What was it, that he saw, that led him to expect the bad result that would follow?
Neu Mejican|4.1.08 @ 11:37AM|#
robc,
Botswana has a diamond industry and the government is a partner in
that industry.
Botswana's impressive economic record has been built on the
foundation of wisely using revenue generated from diamond mining to
fuel economic development through prudent fiscal policies and a
cautious foreign policy. Debswana, the only diamond mining company
operating in Botswana, is 50% owned by the government and generates
about half of all government revenues. In 2007, significant
quantities of Uranium were discovered, and mining is projected to
begin by 2010. Several international mining corporations have
prospected in Botswana for diamonds, gold, uranium, copper, and
even oil, many coming back with positive results.
For some reason this reminds me of the NM pueblos that have used
gambling revenues wisely.
Not all of them do, but when the government has a stable source of
income, uses that to improve the community infrastructure and
encourage economic development and diversification, things go
well.
|4.1.08 @ 11:39AM|#
One difference, perhaps, between the French and American
Revolutions was that we had a middle class revolution that resulted
in the middle class remaining the middle class. France had a
proletarian revolution run by a middle class that wanted to become
the ruling class. A similar thing happened in Russia. In both of
those cases, more ruthless personalities rose to the forefront and
proved disastrous to their nations.
Bonjour scum.
|4.1.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I have to point out that Simon Bolivar was every bit as much a son of 17th century Enlightenment as the US revolutionaries. Simply getting lucky with the revolutionaries isn't enough.
robc|4.1.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Botswana has built electric fences to stem the thousands of
Zimbabweans who flee to find work and escape political
persecution
[Insert witticism here]
|4.1.08 @ 11:44AM|#
robc,
I understand you. There is, of course, the little matter of slavery
to complicate that narrative, but that's why we ended up with a
republic-with-some-slavery, as opposed to a clean republic. And why
it caused so much trouble.
John,
I don't think I can buy the theory that we had a run of luck that
was so widespread and long-lasting. And while France had a small,
urban middle class, it was vastly outnumbered by the peasantry and
the urban proletariat. American society was quite different in its
proportions. Not to mention, they actually has established,
official classes, whereas our leaders even before the revolution
were used to living in a society with much greater social equality.
I don't want to overstate this last point - I'm not making an
absolute statement, just comparing it to Europe at the time.
|4.1.08 @ 11:49AM|#
I agree with you Joe. The US was per capita the wealthiest place on earth in the 1700s. It also had by far and away the highest rate of land ownership. Further, the population was scattered over a huge eastern seaboard much larger than France. People would have never tolerated a Roppspierre here. The US is the beneficiary of some real happy accidents in that way.
|4.1.08 @ 11:55AM|#
One other point about France. France was torn apart by the Reformation. American history classes tend not to teach much about the Reformation in France but it was long and bloody. The main areas of support for the Jacobites were the areas in the South that were predominately Hugonaut during the Reformation. Catherine Demedici succeeded in wiping out the Hugonauts but the bad blood over it remained. In some ways, you could read the French Revolution with its hatred of the crown and the church as just a continuation and Hugonaut payback for France's religous wars of the 16th Century. The US had none of that dynamic going on.
|4.1.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I don't normally cast stones on typos in this forum (and think John raises a valid point), but the Huguenot misspelling raises an amusing thought. If Venezuela launches a man into space, will he be called a Hugonaut?
|4.1.08 @ 12:07PM|#
I'm certainly not one to correct anyone's typos, but:
Jacobites were English Catholics who supported King James.
Jacobins were French revolutionaries.
|4.1.08 @ 1:01PM|#
I'm up for creating the world's first Mugabenaut.
I just don't think we have the budget to bring him down,
though.
Kinshasha, we have a problem.
|4.1.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Given the level of loyalist sympathy during the American
Revolution one should first ask why there wasn't much in the way of
a civil war following on the heels of the war's end.
I wouldn't underestimate simple exhaustion. The Revolutionary War
wasn't a quick coup, it was a long (8 years), drawn-out, bloody (by
the standards of the day) affair.
It effectively was a civil war, in some ways, as some areas of the
country were predominantly loyalist (New York comes to mind), and
loyalists fought on the British side (although not terribly hard,
if memory serves).
|4.1.08 @ 1:07PM|#
I just don't think we have the budget to bring him down,
though.
As in Iraq, bringing down the thug is cheap and easy, as these
things go. We could probably be in and out in a month, if all we
carried about was putting him and his government in the dirt.
Its building a functioning society that's the hard part.
|4.1.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Yup, sociopaths are over-represented in politics. The weird thing to me is how transparently shitty Mugabe is.
|4.1.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Yeah, bring him down from orbit.
But, yes, it's much easier to tear down than to build.
The Army kills people and breaks things. That's what they're
for.
|4.1.08 @ 1:49PM|#
"The Army kills people and breaks things. That's what they're
for."
Very true. I would gladly volunteer for a mission to put Mugabe at
the end of a rope, but who would replace him? Me? There was more
than a little bit of Victorian do gooderism behind Colonialism. It
wasn't all greed. Some colonialists really beleived that they were
bringing religion and civil society to the world. As we have since
found out, life is not that simple. I don't have a good sollution
for Mugabe, only the people of Zimbabwe do.
|4.1.08 @ 2:03PM|#
John,
That is a lot of people.
Sure it is; but it represents a minority of loyalists. In other
words, the move to Canada and other locales in the British empire
doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation for the lack of a civil
war following the American Revolutionary war.
Catherine Demedici succeeded in wiping out the Hugonauts but
the bad blood over it remained.
Actually she didn't. French Protestants still exist today who can
trace their ancestry to the Huguenots. Anyway, the "French Wars of
Religion" were settled in part by Henri IV (namely via the Edict of
Nantes) and in total by Louis XIII (by finally suppressing the
remaining recalcitrant Protestant forces).
_______________________________________
It may be entirely inappropriate to view the French revolution
through the lense of class, etc. Indeed, as many modern historians
have done, it may be more appropriate to view it as Tocqueville did
- as a mere continuation of certain themes and trends in French
history, such as centralization of power.
|4.1.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Some colonialists really beleived that they were bringing
religion and civil society to the world. As we have since found
out, life is not that simple. I don't have a good sollution for
Mugabe, only the people of Zimbabwe do.
Too true, too true.
We're learning the lesson that Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" learned a
century ago.
|4.1.08 @ 2:18PM|#
So long as we are dealing with typos, her name is Catherine de'
Medici.
joe,
They didn't simply support James II, they supported all the Stuart
claimants to the British throne. Furthermore, they weren't
necessarily Catholic or English (indeed, there were Irish, Scottish
and Anglican and other Protestant Jacobites as well).
|4.1.08 @ 2:19PM|#
It seems Africa cannot produce one stable,prosperous
country.I have no idea why.All the basics are there.Natural
resources,industrious people.I'm at a loss.
Well, South Africa is doing pretty well, at least relatively
speaking. Though I understand it is starting to slip too. Bad as
colonialism was, replacing it with kleptocratic tribalist dictators
hasn't worked out so well.
Fluffy|4.1.08 @ 2:22PM|#
All of the 20th Century revolutionaries were educated in the
West and inculcated with all of the West's sicknesses and
immediately went back home to infect others.
This is not, strictly speaking, true.
Some of the leaders who came to power in former French colonies in
Africa had been to the Sorbonne, but a plurality of
college-educated Africans in the late 1950's in the
English-speaking zone had attended US divinical colleges. Those
were the only schools they could gain entry to.
It seems like it would have been tough to pick up "20th century
sicknesses of the West" at small US divinity schools in the
1950's.
I think that, rather than having some 20th century disease of the
Last Man, these men had the age-old diseases of lust for power and
for the unearned. They stepped into the vacuum of the collapse of
the European power system following WWII and raped and abused their
societies because the pool of talent was so thin that there was no
one to stop them. There were probably fewer than 200 men in the
Belgian Congo at the time of the handover of power who had college
educations. Those men looked out over the landscape and saw a place
they thought they could rule to their own benefit, and gave in to
the temptation. No post-Enlightenment malaise required.
Of course, these men only ruled for an afternoon, because once one
man gives in to that temptation it becomes that much more likely
that the next man in line will, too.
|4.1.08 @ 2:30PM|#
They didn't simply support James II, they supported all the
Stuart claimants to the British throne.
My favorite part about this episode is that it gives me the chance
to pronounce "Stuart" as if it has only one syllable.
STOORT! The House of STOORT!
|4.1.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Good point, Fluffy.
It is always a mistake to look at anti-colonialist movements that
latch onto a trendy ideology and see the ideology as the driving
force of the movement.
As if people wouldn't take up arms against a death-squad-backed,
feudalist plantation system run by a foreign ethnic minority unless
they're well-versed in the intricacies of dialectical
materialism.
Fluffy|4.1.08 @ 2:43PM|#
I used to subscribe to the "Africa is Oxford's fault" theory
too, joe, but it's just not borne out by the facts on the
ground.
For example, the Portuguese colonies did not contain even a slight
leaven of Africans educated overseas. There were virtually no
opportunities for education for Africans in the Portuguese
metropole or anywhere else. But Marxism-Leninism succeeded in
seizing power in the former Portuguese colonies.
We can't blame those events on western professors because western
professors never came within 3000 miles of the persons
involved.
Although I would say that it's looking like at least one very poor
former Portuguese colony, having suffered through Marxism, is now
doing OK at establishing a multiparty democracy and functioning
civil society. Mozambique is still very poor, but if they can just
get some better luck with flooding for a few years their growth
trajectory should help them out of the hole.
|4.1.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Colonialism worked on the North American
continent.
Technically every person on the planet is descended in some way
from a colonialist so you would have to say every success in the
world is because of colonialism and every failure is caused by
it.
Choosing the failures or successes of European Colonialism of the
last 400 years to emphasis and saying the results are some how
different is living in a dillusion.
Q joe.
|4.1.08 @ 3:17PM|#
joe and John actually agreeing on some points in the above
comments, occasionally using civil language is surprising to say
the least. I'm half expecting that this will be revealed as some
sort of complex April Fool's
joke.
I'm not really intersted in rehashing the cause of Afric's problems
as they are varied and numerous. IMHO, requirements that must be
met to raise the standard of living for the populace are -
1) Rule of Law. In particular, property rights and free
elections.
2) Free market economies which allow the most productive folks to
produce. The developed world can help by removing trade barriers
(textiles, anyone?) and stop subsidizing agriculture.
3) Education. Harvard of Angola is not necessary here. Africa needs
untold thousands of P.S. 12s.
Foreign investment will flow naturally after these occur. Hell,
it'll gush.
Unfortunately, many African leaders are going to have to be
disposed by revolutions. Equally sad is borders are going to be
redrawn by force. The rest of the world should stay the fuck out of
this. Meddling in Africa's developement has brought disaster to
Africans and shame to the meddlers. I expect it to get very ugly at
times making keeping our mitts off difficult, but a look at the
track record indicates that we (the "civilized" world) don't know
what the hell we're doing.
|4.1.08 @ 3:34PM|#
J Sub D,
If you made AFrica one giant "Duty Free Zone" the investment would
come. Western companies would flock there to get cheap labor. The
problem is that doing that would displace a ton of African elites
who happen to like the current system of institutionalized poverty
for everyone but them. That combined with anti-globalization
nonsense makes it impossible for it to actually occur.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.1.08 @ 4:27PM|#
It seems Africa cannot produce one stable,prosperous
country.I have no idea why.All the basics are there.Natural
resources,industrious people.I'm at a loss.
Tanzania would like to disagree.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.1.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Paine was much more of a radical and was much better liked
in France and if I am not mistaken moved to revolutionary France
later in life.
Paine wasn't radical. Paine was the brains behind the entire
revolution. The rest of the scared bastards just wanted to be real
Brits.
Fritz|4.1.08 @ 4:40PM|#
It's a good thing America had martial law to help us through "Dewey Defeats Truman", no?
|4.1.08 @ 4:42PM|#
"Paine wasn't radical. Paine was the brains behind the entire
revolution. The rest of the scared bastards just wanted to be real
Brits."
Considering that he didn't write either the Declaration of
Independence or the Constitution or the Federalist Papers for that
matter, I have a hard time buying Paine as the "brains behind the
revolution." If there is anyone who was the "brains behind the
revolution" besides the usual suspects, I would say Governor Morris
who drafted most of what ended up being the Constitution.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.1.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Considering that he didn't write either the Declaration of
Independence or the Constitution or the Federalist Papers for that
matter, I have a hard time buying Paine as the "brains behind the
revolution." If there is anyone who was the "brains behind the
revolution" besides the usual suspects, I would say Governor Morris
who drafted most of what ended up being the
Constitution.
And yet none of them wanted to do anything of the sort until Paine
came along...
Paine was the Reggie Jackson of his time.
|4.1.08 @ 5:21PM|#
If you made AFrica one giant "Duty Free Zone" the investment
would come.
Not until the endemic corruption is dealt with. People are going to
be very reluctant to invest very much in a country without a stable
government and property rights. The exception might be oil, which
is worth enough to fund your own private military to protect your
investments.
|4.1.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Choosing the failures or successes of European Colonialism
of the last 400 years to emphasis and saying the results are some
how different is living in a dillusion.
Q joe.
Actually, Q joez Law.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245