Bono wants a United States of Africa...

[Liesje]

Originally Posted by anitram

Successful infrastructure, which is what Africa most importantly lacks, is built on a local level, and then expanded. The creation of an overseer bureaucracy would do absolutely nothing positive for the people on the ground.

My initial reaction as well.

[vaz02]

Originally Posted by last unicorn

The European Union is a peace project, the states are supposed to keep their identities. There still are a lot of tensions and difficulties, and probably will always be, but there it is still important for the states to work together on certain issues. I don't see why this shouldn't work for Africa as well.

We both seem to have a different impression of what the EU are trying to become. As far as im aware the EU is much more than a peace project and is continuing to blur the lines of cultural identity within the Union.

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by last unicorn

The European Union is a peace project, the states are supposed to keep their identities.

It´s not a peace project.

Most of all it´s an economic project and centralized politics controlling the member states.

It was once set up with the vision of peace for Europe, that´s true. But look where it´s going now, the EU has its own army and is heavily involved in so-called "peace-keeping" missions (in reality militarist interventions, often with strong economic interests by some of the EU countries).

To speak of a peace project when the EU is building Eurofighters en masse.. you meant to be cynical, didn´t you?

Africa unite! bless to the one who mentioned Marcus Garvey

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

I agree with you on the European aspect. In 1945 probably no one would have been able to think that there would be a day where a war between European countries is unimaginable.

Unimaginable? In the 90s no one would have thought something like a civil war in Yugoslavia (now former Yugoslavia) could happen. European tribalism?

[melon]

Highly unlikely. We have a hard enough time maintaining the artificially created colonial-era borders as it is. One of the more grotesque realities about the organically created European nation states is that they were basically macro-tribal states forged out of hundreds of years of bloody warfare, and a cultural understanding that the survivors of the smaller, defeated tribes would automatically assimilate and identify with the larger, victorious tribes, which eventually created the nation-states that Europe has today.

This worked with the Germanic peoples, who knew that they were ethnically related at some point in history, so it probably wasn't too offensive to them. The problems have been apparent with other nations in Europe with little Germanic influence like Spain, Italy, and the Balkan states. The former two have a more tenuous union, it seems, while the latter couldn't get along in one nation at all. And so in dealing with Africa, it begs the question as to whether they have a larger, national identity, whether the stronger tribes are interested in co-existing with the weaker ones, whether the weaker ones would ever accept assimilation into the larger ones, and whether this whole process of organic nation-state building is even politically correct in the 21st century.

I think it is perhaps naive to think that we have reached a point in history, where these very banal, medieval-era national attitudes have been transcended, because, for the most part, they still seem to be very relevant to why certain nations have the borders that they have today, why certain nations are breaking apart in separatist movements, and why some nations just flat-out cannot get along internally.

[JCOSTER]

Maybe what makes people come on the defensive about this issue is that he wants it to be call the United States of, through using the same concept though which I think is not a bad idea, the name should be changed to something else that would not offend many people in the US.

[JCOSTER]

Zootlesque; Are you married to him?


Only in my dreams!

[last unicorn]

Originally Posted by JCOSTER

Maybe what makes people come on the defensive about this issue is that he wants it to be call the United States of, through using the same concept though which I think is not a bad idea, the name should be changed to something else that would not offend many people in the US.

Why would that offend people in the US?
Do people in the US have an exclusive right to this title?
I'm sure Bono was speaking metaphorically. Is this even an original quote from him or is this something the newspaper made up?

And why shouldn't countries have the right to unite in order to bring peace and better lives to their people, without having to take care if someone in America is "offended"?
I don't understand. Is the African Union also an offence to people living in the European Union? I don't think so.
Call it whatever you want. It's the concept behind it that counts. And in the end it really has to be effective.

[A_Wanderer]

I have doubts that a union of kleptocrats would be either feasible or desirable.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

It´s not a peace project.

Most of all it´s an economic project and centralized politics controlling the member states.

It was once set up with the vision of peace for Europe, that´s true. But look where it´s going now, the EU has its own army and is heavily involved in so-called "peace-keeping" missions (in reality militarist interventions, often with strong economic interests by some of the EU countries).

To speak of a peace project when the EU is building Eurofighters en masse.. you meant to be cynical, didn´t you?

Africa unite! bless to the one who mentioned Marcus Garvey

in a way you could call the origins of the EU a "peace project" of sorts - the European Coal and Steel Community was initially a strategic alliance between France and Germany as France wanted to tie itself economically to Germany in order to protect itself after WW2 - becoming economically interdependent on each other was meant to dissuade future conflict

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by JCOSTER

Maybe what makes people come on the defensive about this issue is that he wants it to be call the United States of, through using the same concept though which I think is not a bad idea, the name should be changed to something else that would not offend many people in the US.

oh, sorry

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

Unimaginable? In the 90s no one would have thought something like a civil war in Yugoslavia (now former Yugoslavia) could happen. European tribalism?

I was only speaking of EU member states here (including Norway and Switzerland).

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

I was only speaking of EU member states here (including Norway and Switzerland).

well, there's difficulties with the ETA/Basque thing too in Spain/French Pyrenees... not all out war obviously, but still engaged and trying their best to blow people up...

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by mama cass

well, there's difficulties with the ETA/Basque thing too in Spain/French Pyrenees... not all out war obviously, but still engaged and trying their best to blow people up...

Well, ok, let's make my point more clear: What is unimaginable today is that one, two or more member states of the European Union (incl. Norway and Switzerland) will again declare war on another country/on each other.

I'm well aware that some countries, like Italy, Belgium or Spain still are deeply divided and have separation movements, not to forget that some people in Northern Ireland for sure still would love to separate from the UK.
And I'm, of course, well aware that there are still elements in these movements that see terroristic measures as being legitimate, most especially in the ETA.
But I see this as being entirely different from the wars we have seen until 1945.

[yolland]

"Irish people used to always have a little giggle when they would see Americans saluting their flags in schools, and then the whole standing there, singing the flag thing," Bono said.

"But as you get to know a little bit more about things, you start to think, ah, there's so many different tribal groups in the United States, that to create a national identity of that size, they had to really work at this kind of patriotism," he said.

What a strange way to characterize American national identity. I have no idea which "tribes" he has in mind, but unless he means the actual states (which are hardly rife with ominous rumblings of separatism), we aren't fragmented into groups with distinct geopolitical ambitions, which is what you get wars fought over. And unless they're elementary schoolteachers, active-duty military or attend sporting events regularly, most Americans haven't had cause to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the national anthem in decades. I can't imagine what the alternative identities we're apparently in peril of dissolving chaotically (back?) into would be.

[Salome]

the only reason why Europe will keep moving forward to uniting is because of economic reasons
being aware that we need to work together to compete with Asia and the US

if Africa ever wants to move forward in this globalized world I have no doubts the only way to do this is to Unite somehow

[JCOSTER]

Originally Posted by mama cass

oh, sorry

And whats so very funny?

[JCOSTER]

Originally Posted by last unicorn

Why would that offend people in the US?
Do people in the US have an exclusive right to this title?
I'm sure Bono was speaking metaphorically. Is this even an original quote from him or is this something the newspaper made up?

And why shouldn't countries have the right to unite in order to bring peace and better lives to their people, without having to take care if someone in America is "offended"?
I don't understand. Is the African Union also an offence to people living in the European Union? I don't think so.
Call it whatever you want. It's the concept behind it that counts. And in the end it really has to be effective.

I agree with you that it's the concept that counts. I think there are quite a few Bono haters out there and this will just give them the right to really jump on the band wagon about his causes.

It was an original quote from him when he was Japan.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by JCOSTER

And whats so very funny?

this:

quote JCOSTER: "the name should be changed to something else that would not offend many people in the US."

(but the quote is possibly more arrogant than funny)

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

Well, ok, let's make my point more clear: What is unimaginable today is that one, two or more member states of the European Union (incl. Norway and Switzerland) will again declare war on another country/on each other.

Unimaginable on another country? I don´t think so. Then why did the EU create an own army of 100,000 soldiers? Why are the bureaucrats from Brussels so eager to establish their own multi billion arms deals?

No, Vincent, declaring war is possible anytime with the criminals there. But of course, we call it humanitarian. We want to bring "peace" to our world, call it "interventions", just like the U.S. In the name of democracy we continue to steal the raw materials and resources from Africa!

France is heavily exporting arms. Beautiful Mme. Sarkozy is married to a butcher. Media loves them. Of course.. many Europeans are happy we haven´t seen a war, but I´ll tell you what, it´s not that far off. Ask your parents for a moment what has changed on the news, in the language, in our national/ militarist pride, even the wording has become more violent. Long term strategy my dear. Our leaders are working on making war socially acceptable.

Call me pessimistic, but the only reason we didn´t have a big war since WW II is that all our history is so ugly, bad, devastating, shocking and bloody that 2 generations learned something. The third generation forgets.. it makes a difference whether you have lost 60% of your friends and family (like our grandmothers and -fathers) OR if you only discussed the Nazis in school and at night you beat up punks with the gang.