In "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty," Kristof makes three main claims on what causes poverty. His claims can be tied back to Chua's claims. His first claim was that colonization, like many people suggest. may be one of the reasons that Africa has fallen so behind in developing. It may be the cause of the current situation. Kristof the provides his readers with another two claims. One of them can really be compared to Chua's claims. Kristof wrote that with a good government, and government authority/interference, some African countries can be saved from poverty. Chua argues that the elite people, who are in charge and economically stable, should aid the impoverished indigenous majority. Both Chua and Kristof may agree on the fact to help any country that is in poverty, interference and aid from the richer people/ government is inevitable.
This article is an interesting take on poor countries and how they can become successful. It talks about how many countries that were colonized were no better off, maybe worse off, compared to those that had no colonization at all. It is interesting to look at Chua’s point about dominant minority groups becoming hated and her point on globalization. Chua says that the countries with nothing should be getting contributions from those countries that rule, but then again how did those countries come to rule without market-dominant minorities. It is hard to pin point how a country could be better off that wasn’t colonized as stated in the articles. When Chua is stating that those countries, like the U.S., which is dominant to the world was colonized. The U.S. was a country had acknowledged globalization and they are dominant to the world, but the article the talking about how many countries that didn’t receive globalization are better off. I’m curious to see how those countries are better off.
But similarly, the U.S. has a good government and in the article it talks about how good governance is important. Then again Chua criticizes the U.S. mainly for being market- dominant to the world. This article does not mention the case about ethnicity playing a role in the market- dominant population, while that is almost Chua’s whole stance. The article stresses the importance of good government being needed for a successful country, while Chua thinks that democracy had impact high ethnic conflict. Personally her standpoint on the point of democracy leading to ethnic conflict does not make any sense what so ever. As the article states a good government will help a country, not hard it, which is pretty much what Chua is saying just in a different way. She states “calling for democracy in developing world can be shortsighted and even dangerous”. How can good government ruin a place that has nothing, it should only improve them.
In the article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" Kristof discusses his travels in Zimbabwe. Upon interviewing the citizens of Zimbabwe, it is clear that they do not like the current government. In Chua's article "A world on the Edge" she discusses how the current president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe, is trying to take back the one million acres that the europeans own. President Mugabe has united all of Zimbabwe to force the europeans out of the country and take back their land. The United States and England has been calling for Mugabe to resign and call for another fair election. Ironically, the reason Mugabe is the result of a fair election and the reason that he has stayed the president so long is because of his anti-white campaign, but this was still in 2002. Kristof's article is more recent, it was written in 2010 and the citizens have had a major change in opinion. The citizens want to go back to the old regime, one where the europeans ruled and oppressed the citizens.
Comparing both articles, Chua would disagree with Kristof's solution to hold a free election to rid the country of President Mugabe. Since the original cause of this problem was democracy to begin with how will more democracy solve it. Even if President Mugabe does not get re-elected, who is to say that the next president will not do the same heinous crimes as Mugabe did. I would agree in Kuper's claim that there is no easy was to solve Zimbabwe's poverty, democracy might not solve all of their problems right away, however it is a start.
In her article Amy Chua talks about outsiders going into foreign countries and creating corporations that ultimately control a large portion of the wealth in those countries, as it is with the Chinese in the Philippines. With only a handful of people controlling the wealth, and most of them being Chinese, the Philippines is experiencing large quantities of poverty, creating a predominantly poor class. On the other hand in his article Nicholas Kristof tells us that perhaps the biggest reason why many African countries are suffering from poverty is because they were not properly colonized. He states that “Ethiopia was only lightly colonized, and it didn’t obviously benefit either from the limited colonial imprint. More broadly, Portugal barely touched areas like the interior of Mozambique, and yet they are no better off than French colonies that underwent a huge French imprint”. Now people in Africa are suffering the consequences, the standard of living and quality of life is horrible. Both Chua and Kristof show us that outside influence is never good. After reading both articles it is clear to me that a lot of the reasons why some nations are poverty stricken is because they have been greatly influenced by out side powers who don’t have a genuine interest in helping the country, but instead in helping themselves get richer through exploiting the countries resources. More over Chua and Kristof share another common idea, the idea that proper government intervention could help alleviate this problem. As with the colonization problem in Africa Kristof tells us “that Botswana since independence has had a series of wise, honest rulers, and partly as a result no conflict” this demonstrates that “it is clear that African countries can register enormous economic growth when they are well-governed”. I myself agree with his claim. If you think about it the only ruling authority that can actually force some kind of large corporation to change is the government. Also the only thing that can get rid of any kind of corrupt government officials is the government its self. There for the government must be well establish and willing to provide for the well being of its own people to be effective, then and only then will conditions be improved for those poverty-stricken citizens. Take Mexico for example, after visiting Mexico City two years ago I surprised at how well established the city was. Yet there was a large number of people who were poor and trying to make a living by selling stuff on the street. Although Mexico defiantly needs a better government structure to help its people, after reading Chua I can say I had a first hand example as to what she was saying. As my family and I strolled through the nicer parts of Mexico it wasn’t hard to notice that the people who were better of were mostly whites, whites who make up a very small portion of the population. Chua’s Claim is evident in many parts of the world, and Kristof seems to make the most sense when he says that wise, honest rulers and good government are the cure to this sickness.
Nicholas Kristof writes in his New York Times article, “Post Card from Zimbabwe,” about Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. Although I am not very familiar with the topic of Zimbabwe and President Mugabe, I do know that Amy Chua mentions them in her article, “A World on Edge.”
Chua describes how Market Dominant Minorities are seen “as exploiters, foreign intruders, their wealth inexplicable, [and] their superiority intolerable” (65). She further explains that backlash is the result of the pursuit of free-market democracy. Backlash can be “against markets that [target] the market-dominant minority’s wealth” (69). She then speaks of Mugabe and how he has been encouraging seizures of land owned by whites. Due to the land grab, Zimbabwe’s economy fell.
Reading Kristof’s article, I now observe the negative impact of pursuing free market democracy. Kristof mentions how one citizen was once happy that the control of his country was going back to his people, but now he wishes the power to be in the hands of the whites. Then the writer mentions how the education system has gone down, people have no access to hospitals and care because of lack of money, and the overall life expectancy has lowered. Perhaps Chua’s suggestion of “[holding] off on democracy until free markets produce enough economic and social development to make democracy sustainable” is in need to execute (75). Obviously, democracy is not working in Zimbabwe as Mugabe is still in power and a free market with its benefits is unattainable because of the money and lack of sustainability.
In "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty," Kristof talks about Zimbabwe and the state that they are in right now. He goes into detail of how they might actually be in a worse position than they were before when they were under a different regime. Before they used to be under the racist white regime and was known as Rhodesia which later became Zimbabwe. Many of the people that he talked to said that they were better off under the rule of the previous regime because at least it kept money coming in and provided jobs as well as food being affordable whereas now it's all the opposite and they have no money and no food. Not only that but their health and education also deteriorate. It was an interesting read, and comparable to Chua's points on how minorities were being hated on for dominating other countries and making the most from those countries. It puts into focus the idea that having those minorities that are continuing to make profit might just be good for their country, comparing to Zimbabwe and how they fell apart after they had changed regimes.I feel that most countries just need a better government that has control and can actually make changes to just grow their country, and just have to start somewhere to improve their lifestyles.
This is a perfect example of democracy taking a bad turn. President Mugabe was elected because he said he would stand up to the white farm owners and seize their land but it has turned into something very bad for the county of Zimbabwe because now its people are struggling to live and find food. As the article says, people liked better when they were under Rhodesia, even though he didn't do much for his people, but at least there were jobs to be filled and food to be eaten. This shows us that democracy can take a bad turn, and that the right leaders must be chosen. And the leaders that are chosen must do their jobs in good faith and do what's best for their people and give equality to all, no matter the race, gender, or religion.
Kristof’s New York Times article “Post Card from Zimbabwe” discusses his experience during his trip as a tourist to Zimbabwe. He discusses the shift of the government as it has changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, and the Zimbabwean’s response to this change. So many of the Zimbabwe citizens were ecstatic about such change, until they realized that “the ones [they] chased away were better and the ones [they] put in power would oppress [them]” (Kristof). They feel that they are being oppressed by their own black people, specifically, the “tiny black elite” himself, President Robert Mugabe. They believe that if it weren’t for him, they would have adequate health care and a means to provide an education to the first graders without a classroom and the other students who don’t have school supplies. Before, when they were under a white government, they had money and jobs, but being under Mr. Mugabe, they don’t even have food to eat. It seems that Mr. Mugabe’s ruling is based on his way or no way in regards to the government, especially when it comes to the white farm ownerships and their input. Mr. Mugabe has gone so far as to have his cronies take away and destroy the white-owned farmland.
Kristof’s article in comparison to Amy Chua’s “A World on the Edge” discusses the results and actions of what occurs when free-market democracy is pursued. Chua discusses the results of this, which is illustrated through backlash of an ethically targeted antimarket reaction (Chua). She discusses, like Kristof, the violent measures of President Mugabe as he has gone so far as to destroy acres of white-owned lands.
In the end of his article, Kristof believes that the international pressure, specifically, pressure from those in South Africa, would allow for free elections to be held. Such elections will do the same justice as it did to get him into ruling. On the other hand, Chua believes that holding such a free election is the reason for the democracy that has taken over. So Chua believes that taking this approach to get Mugabe to step down would be “breathtakingly naïve,” since it is the reason that he is the president.
Both Kristof and Chua make really good points as far as resolutions go to solve the problems of Zimbabwe. If I had to choose which plan I would go to, I would be stuck in the middle since they both bring up good points. But then again, after reading Kristof’s article, it seems that they need immediate help, so the best alternative would be to hold a free election and try go from there. This, would hopefully, help improve the situations there and provide the people with what they need for survival.
Nicholas Kristof's article, "Postcard From Zimbabwe" explains a series of changes that occurred when the government of Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, changed from a white elite power, to a black elite power. Before Mugabe, current president of Zimbabwe was in office many citizens believe that they would be better off with a black government because a majority of the black citizens felt that they were being oppressed by the white minority group in the country. In the article, “A world on Edge,” Chua explains just that, how citizens of a country who are part of a majority with a minority ruling group feel oppressed resulting in a change of government. With a minority leading class Chua mentions that there are possible negative outcomes, one being that the majority will become angry and resentful towards the minority group, and respond to violence. In Zimbabwe’s case Kristof doesn’t mention any violence against the white minority, but they do mention that as a whole the country has suffered a lack of resources and a better government. Reasons for this could be that the new black elite government feel extremely threatened to be once again overtaken by the minority whites and therefore present and extremely oppressive government. Kristof basically states that even though the white minority was oppressive towards the people of Zimbabwe, the government provided livable resources, to where now many citizens are unable to obtain things like education or medical attention due to lack of resources. Kristof just goes to prove Chua’s point that a government who has a market-dominating minority will often encounter government problems.
In Kristof's article "Zimbabe and the Cause of Poverty", he details that one of the main reasons many countries in Africa are going through poverty is because of the way they have been colonized. This leads to the idea that a smaller group of another ethnicity colonized an area and grew economically by using the colony's resources. In Chua's article, she also explains this idea of colonization by how the Chinese population controls a big amount of the wealth in the Phillipines. Although both Kristof and Chua both agree on the idea of colonization being a main reason of the poverty many African countries are in, they disagree on the idea of free election. Kristof thinks that free election will help bring down the bad governance that has led many countries into the hole they are in, while Chua believes that free election will only lead them into an even more deeper hole because free election is how these bad leaders have risen to the top.
In the article “Postcard From Zimbabwe” by Nicholas D. Kristof he discusses democracy in Zimbabwe. More specifically he focuses on President Robert Mugabe and the negative affects he has caused on Zimbabwe. As Kristof visited Zimbabwe he interviewed many unhappy people, who at one time thought they were making the right decision electing Mugabe. Since the election of Mugabe, Zimbabwe has gone downhill and has experienced issues in many important areas such as health and education. In one aspect this article contradicts the article “A world on the Edge” by Amy Chua. Chua argues but that “the pursuit of free market democracy becomes an engine of potentially catastrophic ethnoationalism, pitting a frustrated “indigenous” majority, easily aroused by opportunistic, vote seeking politicians, against a resented, wealthy ethnic minority” which may have been the case, that eventually back fired on the people now under the rule of Mugabe. This article shows that the people of Zimbabwe actually liked it better “under the old racist, white regime of what was then called Rhodesia”. When the whites were the elite minority at least there were jobs for the people and money continued to come. Perhaps Zimbabwe should have "held off on democracy until free markets produce enough economic and social development to make democracy sustainable" like Chua suggests. On page 69 of Chua's article she talks directly about this same situation in Zimbabwe. Kristof believes that in order to “pry Mr. Mugabe’s fingers from his chokehold on a lovely country” African countries and Western powers need to pressure Mugabe to give up his reign but according to Chua democracy is not the answer to Zimbabwe's problems.
Kristof talks about how Mugabe destroyed the once lush nation of Zimbabwe. Worldwide pressure forced the oppressive Rhodesian regime to give up power. Chua talks about how market dominant minorities are the Achilles heel of free market democracy. This would be the case if Mugabe would have made things better under his power but instead he is even more oppressive than the whites that ruled before him. Before it was the white minority with all of the power, and currently it is the black minority that has all of the power and money. This doesn’t really make sense because how can there be a black minority in a place that is filled with black people.
In the article “Postcard from Zimbabwe” by Nicholas Kristof, he shows how Zimbabwe has gone downhill ever since it has changed from Rhodesia. He shows how even the citizens of Zimbabwe are unpleased with the way things are going over there. One man in a village named Kizita even said “But we didn’t realize the ones we chased away were better and the ones we put in power would oppress us”. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, believes that the blacks are in the minority with Europeans taking their land. In the article “World on Edge” Chua uses Zimbabwe as an example of an “ethical targeted anti-market reaction”. Shes shows how there is a change in the government when people are oppressed. The minority is ruling, which is bad for a country and ends in failure. President Robert Mugabe does not want any foreigners owning his land, yet they have been for generations. Chua does not believe a free election or democracy should be the answer to this. She says that he has only been reelected because of his revolt against these foreign land stealers. Chua and Kristof disagree with when free election should take place. Kristof is for democracy and Chua thinks it results in failure. I do not know who to agree with yet I’m excited to hear more about this in class.
In his New York Times article, "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty", Kristof claims that the reason for Africa being behind in development is due to colonization. He is saying that countries were not colonized were not better off than countries that had been colonized. Referring to Chua's ideas in "A World on the Edge", she discusses the idea of free market dominant minorities. This means a country is based on its monetary fundings and its economy. Kristof discusses that a country that had not been colonized may have been successful due to the natural resources and have been developing in that manner for many generations. As opposed to a free market dominant minority, such as the United States, who develops its nation from funding and imported goods rather than harvesting all of its own natural resources, a non-colonized country has been surviving in the way it has been since the country's existence. Kristof also discusses that the success of one's government determines the success of that country. In other words, a good government leads a developed country and bad government still needs developments in the country. A country can economically grow enormously if governed right. Chua also infers that the elite government will have success in its country and should be able to help developing countries but then claims that it will increase in ethnic conflict among nations. So apparently, those with good governments and successful nations need to help other nations as well as needing to "slow down their roll" so developing nations can "catch up" and will not be offended by the success of others and not cause conflict.
In The New York Times article “Post Card from Zimbabwe” by Kristoff we learn about the hardships a free election has caused. In Zimbabwe the people chased away the white government in hope that their own black people would govern and they would receive some type of economic relief. Instead they were granted with surprising oppression from their own people, so bad that a pregnant woman that had malaria couldn’t get medicine because she couldn’t pay two dollars for it. Here in America two dollars is nothing. A lot of the people there even say that they regret having kicked out the people that were in the government before. They are so scared of the government they have now that they don’t even want to be quoted. It is sad to see that these people were given the opportunity to have a great government but were fooled by their own people. What the people want now is an opportunity to change their government with free elections. However, Chua would disagree with this and say that the decision to make a free election again would be stupid. Considering that that is how they ended up with this poor government it is obvious to think that making that decision would be bad. The only way in which this can work is if the people are well educated on who they want to rule them and what they propose to do. I think that a free election is madly needed in Zimbabwe since the people are doing so bad and are so poor. Having this election can possibly bring change to the country. Even though it might take a while before they are able to see results they will see some change. It is unfair to think that there are kids that don’t have an education because of such a small fee that has to be paid and that some kids don’t even have a classroom in which they can study. The only solution here is to over throw the government. Silvia Diaz (extra credit)
In Kristof's article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" he addresses the importance of the market minority as Chua discussed in her article" A World on Edge". Chua discusses that outsiders coming in and taking over are not welcome and are often resented.In is article he states that now that the government is now controlled by the new president (who the majority elected) cannot and does not help the economy. He states that a woman who was pregnant and had malaria, walked with her husband go get treatment and was denied because she did not have the two dollars to pay for it. They have no money to have simple things such as bandages and shots. Students can no longer go to school because their parents can not afford to pay 36 dollars that has to be charged in order for them to provide books and desk. Chua stated in her article that the market minority, white people in this case do more good to the economy even though they are often resented. People of Zimbabwe state that they perferred Rodesia before it was Zimbabwe because they were able to get jobs and there was money coming in to the economy. There are many negative factors that may arise from implementing a free market economy and Zimbabwe is the number one example. The country has been going downhill ever since, and is facing crimes and poverty. Even thought both Chua and Kristof agree that the market minority is a key factor in keeping the economy thriving in struggling societies, they would disagree on free elections. The reason that Zimbabwe is in the state it is in is because of free elections and democracy.
Writer Nicholas Kristof claims, in his article “Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty”, that the major reason to be attributed to African poverty is simply the lack of good governance. Kristof expresses that there are a number of different ways that can potentially bring rise to Africa’s economic standing. Arguments based around colonialism and the domestication of indigenous animals are used to possibly provide reason to Africa’s financial standing, however, what Kristof finds is that these reasons alone cannot explain why some areas of Africa may be doing better than others. Kristof explains, “What distinguishes the fastest growing economies in Africa, also including Rwanda, is simply their good governance.” Similarly, in Amy Chua’s article, “A world on the Edge”, the whole argument is based around the ruling of a market-dominated minorities. Both arguments may not go hand-in-hand with one another, but the main point that can be agreed upon is the lack of, for lack of a better term, a good “Native” Government institution that looks towards the development of its country and its people. How they go about doing that is where the difference is seen. Chua argues against market-dominated minorities, that is, outside help which may be the cause of ethnic violence and ultimately a path to regress in the country, however, believes that if aid is to come from another country, it should be a “significant and visible contribution made to local economies.” Kristof on the other hand, does not go about acknowledging, for or against, the intervention of outside help but instead focuses on the how they are to solve the problem of poverty in Africa from the inside out, whether it be from across the seas or within their lands. Kristof plainly argues that a great leader, which looks towards the betterment of his country and its people, can eventually drive the country of Africa to become the “center of economic dynamism.”
In the article “A World on Edge” by Amy Chua, she points out that the minority are dominating free markets of foreign countries and producing most of the countries’ wealth. She explains that because of this, the minority are those who are more successful rather than the actual majority of the country. Chua provides an example of the dominance of Chinese in the Philippines. She tells that Chinese who owns majority of Philippine’s corporations are the principles that are making them wealthy, causing the rest of the people in the Philippines (Filipinos) to live in poverty. Chua’s claim is highly comparable to Nicholas Kristof’s claim in his article “Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty.” In his article, Kristof claims that colonialism is the reason why Africa is behind in developing their countries, causing African countries to suffer in poverty. He states that “Liberia wasn’t formally colonized, although the immigration of former American slaves and the Firestone plantations were reminiscent of colonialism.” In other words, the country of Liberia somewhat had an outside influence from the Americans, or in this case, the minorities to help them somewhat develop. The importance of both Chua and Kristof’s claims is that dominance of minorities over a foreign country can either help or harm the country. In Chua’s claim, it highlights fact that even though the minorities are hatred for their wealth, the development they have done to that country was a huge help. On the other hand, Kristof’s claim signifies that the outsiders are in the country to only claim goods for themselves, rather than helping the country they are in to develop. The dominance of outsiders can have only two main reasons why they are dominating over a certain country: to help the country develop, or to just make themselves richer. Another common idea that Chua and Kristof share that could help lessen a country’s poverty is a good government. Chua and Kristof both agree that the growth of a country is based on a country that is well-governed. In the beginning of Kristof’s article, he tells that the reason why Africa is currently suffering in poverty is because of bad governance. With this term, it is simply explainable that a corrupt government does not have the intention of producing growth for its nation. Instead, they just rule for the reason dominate and for also selfish reasons. A nation cannot grow in a government that functions badly simply because the authorities do not have the interest of creating economic production that could help the country grow. For a nation to be alleviated from poverty, sincere, knowledgeable, and honest authorities are needed in order to make a great and significant change for a nation.
In Nicholas D. Kristof's New York Times article titled, "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty" Kristof argues that the reason for poverty in africa is that lack of good governance and leaders. Kristof first discusses how many people would point out the fact that colonialism has prevented different countries in Africa from standing on their own two feet and flourishing by themselves. He then argues that although this may be the case there are clearly countries within Africa that have avoided such a bad turnout from foreign invaders. Similarly in Amy Chua's "A World on Edge" Chua points out that aid from other countries should be donated to the development of that country's economy. Kristof would argue against this statement and state that aid should not come from the outside, it is only from within the country itself that a country can bounce back and flourish. Kristof believes that it is the leader of the nation and their performance that reflects how the nation will survive economically. Both Chua and Kristof clearly agree that poverty can be avoided by having good leaders and a good government.
I decided to read the article by Kristoff "Post cards from ZImbabwe," and I liked this article. Even though I was surprised of what the content was. Reading about how people in Zimbabwe are suffering because these new people took over their land and changed things and now they are suffering more. They said that back them the whites had power and back when Zimbabwe was named Rhodesia, people actually had jobs and the actually had money to be using for spending. Also the things at stores were cheaper than they are now with this new leader. I mean it is not the people's fault that now they are suffering more because they did not know what it would be like for this black elite to run their country was going to be like.
It is very sad how many of them would prefer to go back to the Rhodesia times and stay that way because back then the people of ZImbabwe would not be suffering as much as they are today.
So in this case, is Zimbabwe better off by being controlled by the white elites even if the change things?
The article "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty" was certainly an interesting read. Kristof talks about three different things in his article that are affecting areas of Zimbabwe. The first issues is colonialism. With the lack of investment in human capital, we can see how things are going to be affected. Another issue he brings up is the lack of large mammals. This sounded a bit strange to me at first, but as I read on Kristof makes this issue very clear. Without large mammals, they wouldn't have anything to increase agricultural and domesticated growth. But the biggest issue is that they need a good government. Chua also agrees that we need a strong group of people to take charge and aid the impoverished. With a steady government they can maintain a good balance, and create some sort of stability for the people. If these ideas are addressed and improved on then perhaps Zimbabwe will be a much better place for people to live in.
21 comments:
In "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty," Kristof makes three main claims on what causes poverty. His claims can be tied back to Chua's claims. His first claim was that colonization, like many people suggest. may be one of the reasons that Africa has fallen so behind in developing. It may be the cause of the current situation. Kristof the provides his readers with another two claims. One of them can really be compared to Chua's claims. Kristof wrote that with a good government, and government authority/interference, some African countries can be saved from poverty. Chua argues that the elite people, who are in charge and economically stable, should aid the impoverished indigenous majority. Both Chua and Kristof may agree on the fact to help any country that is in poverty, interference and aid from the richer people/ government is inevitable.
Zimbabwe and the causes of African poverty.
This article is an interesting take on poor countries and how they can become successful. It talks about how many countries that were colonized were no better off, maybe worse off, compared to those that had no colonization at all. It is interesting to look at Chua’s point about dominant minority groups becoming hated and her point on globalization. Chua says that the countries with nothing should be getting contributions from those countries that rule, but then again how did those countries come to rule without market-dominant minorities. It is hard to pin point how a country could be better off that wasn’t colonized as stated in the articles. When Chua is stating that those countries, like the U.S., which is dominant to the world was colonized. The U.S. was a country had acknowledged globalization and they are dominant to the world, but the article the talking about how many countries that didn’t receive globalization are better off. I’m curious to see how those countries are better off.
But similarly, the U.S. has a good government and in the article it talks about how good governance is important. Then again Chua criticizes the U.S. mainly for being market- dominant to the world. This article does not mention the case about ethnicity playing a role in the market- dominant population, while that is almost Chua’s whole stance. The article stresses the importance of good government being needed for a successful country, while Chua thinks that democracy had impact high ethnic conflict. Personally her standpoint on the point of democracy leading to ethnic conflict does not make any sense what so ever. As the article states a good government will help a country, not hard it, which is pretty much what Chua is saying just in a different way. She states “calling for democracy in developing world can be shortsighted and even dangerous”. How can good government ruin a place that has nothing, it should only improve them.
In the article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" Kristof discusses his travels in Zimbabwe. Upon interviewing the citizens of Zimbabwe, it is clear that they do not like the current government. In Chua's article "A world on the Edge" she discusses how the current president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe, is trying to take back the one million acres that the europeans own. President Mugabe has united all of Zimbabwe to force the europeans out of the country and take back their land. The United States and England has been calling for Mugabe to resign and call for another fair election. Ironically, the reason Mugabe is the result of a fair election and the reason that he has stayed the president so long is because of his anti-white campaign, but this was still in 2002. Kristof's article is more recent, it was written in 2010 and the citizens have had a major change in opinion. The citizens want to go back to the old regime, one where the europeans ruled and oppressed the citizens.
Comparing both articles, Chua would disagree with Kristof's solution to hold a free election to rid the country of President Mugabe. Since the original cause of this problem was democracy to begin with how will more democracy solve it. Even if President Mugabe does not get re-elected, who is to say that the next president will not do the same heinous crimes as Mugabe did. I would agree in Kuper's claim that there is no easy was to solve Zimbabwe's poverty, democracy might not solve all of their problems right away, however it is a start.
In her article Amy Chua talks about outsiders going into foreign countries and creating corporations that ultimately control a large portion of the wealth in those countries, as it is with the Chinese in the Philippines. With only a handful of people controlling the wealth, and most of them being Chinese, the Philippines is experiencing large quantities of poverty, creating a predominantly poor class. On the other hand in his article Nicholas Kristof tells us that perhaps the biggest reason why many African countries are suffering from poverty is because they were not properly colonized. He states that “Ethiopia was only lightly colonized, and it didn’t obviously benefit either from the limited colonial imprint. More broadly, Portugal barely touched areas like the interior of Mozambique, and yet they are no better off than French colonies that underwent a huge French imprint”. Now people in Africa are suffering the consequences, the standard of living and quality of life is horrible. Both Chua and Kristof show us that outside influence is never good. After reading both articles it is clear to me that a lot of the reasons why some nations are poverty stricken is because they have been greatly influenced by out side powers who don’t have a genuine interest in helping the country, but instead in helping themselves get richer through exploiting the countries resources.
More over Chua and Kristof share another common idea, the idea that proper government intervention could help alleviate this problem. As with the colonization problem in Africa Kristof tells us “that Botswana since independence has had a series of wise, honest rulers, and partly as a result no conflict” this demonstrates that “it is clear that African countries can register enormous economic growth when they are well-governed”. I myself agree with his claim. If you think about it the only ruling authority that can actually force some kind of large corporation to change is the government. Also the only thing that can get rid of any kind of corrupt government officials is the government its self. There for the government must be well establish and willing to provide for the well being of its own people to be effective, then and only then will conditions be improved for those poverty-stricken citizens. Take Mexico for example, after visiting Mexico City two years ago I surprised at how well established the city was. Yet there was a large number of people who were poor and trying to make a living by selling stuff on the street. Although Mexico defiantly needs a better government structure to help its people, after reading Chua I can say I had a first hand example as to what she was saying. As my family and I strolled through the nicer parts of Mexico it wasn’t hard to notice that the people who were better of were mostly whites, whites who make up a very small portion of the population. Chua’s Claim is evident in many parts of the world, and Kristof seems to make the most sense when he says that wise, honest rulers and good government are the cure to this sickness.
Nicholas Kristof writes in his New York Times article, “Post Card from Zimbabwe,” about Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. Although I am not very familiar with the topic of Zimbabwe and President Mugabe, I do know that Amy Chua mentions them in her article, “A World on Edge.”
Chua describes how Market Dominant Minorities are seen “as exploiters, foreign intruders, their wealth inexplicable, [and] their superiority intolerable” (65). She further explains that backlash is the result of the pursuit of free-market democracy. Backlash can be “against markets that [target] the market-dominant minority’s wealth” (69). She then speaks of Mugabe and how he has been encouraging seizures of land owned by whites. Due to the land grab, Zimbabwe’s economy fell.
Reading Kristof’s article, I now observe the negative impact of pursuing free market democracy. Kristof mentions how one citizen was once happy that the control of his country was going back to his people, but now he wishes the power to be in the hands of the whites. Then the writer mentions how the education system has gone down, people have no access to hospitals and care because of lack of money, and the overall life expectancy has lowered. Perhaps Chua’s suggestion of “[holding] off on democracy until free markets produce enough economic and social development to make democracy sustainable” is in need to execute (75). Obviously, democracy is not working in Zimbabwe as Mugabe is still in power and a free market with its benefits is unattainable because of the money and lack of sustainability.
In "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty," Kristof talks about Zimbabwe and the state that they are in right now. He goes into detail of how they might actually be in a worse position than they were before when they were under a different regime. Before they used to be under the racist white regime and was known as Rhodesia which later became Zimbabwe. Many of the people that he talked to said that they were better off under the rule of the previous regime because at least it kept money coming in and provided jobs as well as food being affordable whereas now it's all the opposite and they have no money and no food. Not only that but their health and education also deteriorate. It was an interesting read, and comparable to Chua's points on how minorities were being hated on for dominating other countries and making the most from those countries. It puts into focus the idea that having those minorities that are continuing to make profit might just be good for their country, comparing to Zimbabwe and how they fell apart after they had changed regimes.I feel that most countries just need a better government that has control and can actually make changes to just grow their country, and just have to start somewhere to improve their lifestyles.
This is a perfect example of democracy taking a bad turn. President Mugabe was elected because he said he would stand up to the white farm owners and seize their land but it has turned into something very bad for the county of Zimbabwe because now its people are struggling to live and find food. As the article says, people liked better when they were under Rhodesia, even though he didn't do much for his people, but at least there were jobs to be filled and food to be eaten. This shows us that democracy can take a bad turn, and that the right leaders must be chosen. And the leaders that are chosen must do their jobs in good faith and do what's best for their people and give equality to all, no matter the race, gender, or religion.
Kristof’s New York Times article “Post Card from Zimbabwe” discusses his experience during his trip as a tourist to Zimbabwe. He discusses the shift of the government as it has changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, and the Zimbabwean’s response to this change. So many of the Zimbabwe citizens were ecstatic about such change, until they realized that “the ones [they] chased away were better and the ones [they] put in power would oppress [them]” (Kristof). They feel that they are being oppressed by their own black people, specifically, the “tiny black elite” himself, President Robert Mugabe. They believe that if it weren’t for him, they would have adequate health care and a means to provide an education to the first graders without a classroom and the other students who don’t have school supplies. Before, when they were under a white government, they had money and jobs, but being under Mr. Mugabe, they don’t even have food to eat. It seems that Mr. Mugabe’s ruling is based on his way or no way in regards to the government, especially when it comes to the white farm ownerships and their input. Mr. Mugabe has gone so far as to have his cronies take away and destroy the white-owned farmland.
Kristof’s article in comparison to Amy Chua’s “A World on the Edge” discusses the results and actions of what occurs when free-market democracy is pursued. Chua discusses the results of this, which is illustrated through backlash of an ethically targeted antimarket reaction (Chua). She discusses, like Kristof, the violent measures of President Mugabe as he has gone so far as to destroy acres of white-owned lands.
In the end of his article, Kristof believes that the international pressure, specifically, pressure from those in South Africa, would allow for free elections to be held. Such elections will do the same justice as it did to get him into ruling. On the other hand, Chua believes that holding such a free election is the reason for the democracy that has taken over. So Chua believes that taking this approach to get Mugabe to step down would be “breathtakingly naïve,” since it is the reason that he is the president.
Both Kristof and Chua make really good points as far as resolutions go to solve the problems of Zimbabwe. If I had to choose which plan I would go to, I would be stuck in the middle since they both bring up good points. But then again, after reading Kristof’s article, it seems that they need immediate help, so the best alternative would be to hold a free election and try go from there. This, would hopefully, help improve the situations there and provide the people with what they need for survival.
Adrianna Boles
Nicholas Kristof's article, "Postcard From Zimbabwe" explains a series of changes that occurred when the government of Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, changed from a white elite power, to a black elite power. Before Mugabe, current president of Zimbabwe was in office many citizens believe that they would be better off with a black government because a majority of the black citizens felt that they were being oppressed by the white minority group in the country. In the article, “A world on Edge,” Chua explains just that, how citizens of a country who are part of a majority with a minority ruling group feel oppressed resulting in a change of government. With a minority leading class Chua mentions that there are possible negative outcomes, one being that the majority will become angry and resentful towards the minority group, and respond to violence. In Zimbabwe’s case Kristof doesn’t mention any violence against the white minority, but they do mention that as a whole the country has suffered a lack of resources and a better government. Reasons for this could be that the new black elite government feel extremely threatened to be once again overtaken by the minority whites and therefore present and extremely oppressive government. Kristof basically states that even though the white minority was oppressive towards the people of Zimbabwe, the government provided livable resources, to where now many citizens are unable to obtain things like education or medical attention due to lack of resources. Kristof just goes to prove Chua’s point that a government who has a market-dominating minority will often encounter government problems.
In Kristof's article "Zimbabe and the Cause of Poverty", he details that one of the main reasons many countries in Africa are going through poverty is because of the way they have been colonized. This leads to the idea that a smaller group of another ethnicity colonized an area and grew economically by using the colony's resources. In Chua's article, she also explains this idea of colonization by how the Chinese population controls a big amount of the wealth in the Phillipines. Although both Kristof and Chua both agree on the idea of colonization being a main reason of the poverty many African countries are in, they disagree on the idea of free election. Kristof thinks that free election will help bring down the bad governance that has led many countries into the hole they are in, while Chua believes that free election will only lead them into an even more deeper hole because free election is how these bad leaders have risen to the top.
In the article “Postcard From Zimbabwe” by Nicholas D. Kristof he discusses democracy in Zimbabwe. More specifically he focuses on President Robert Mugabe and the negative affects he has caused on Zimbabwe. As Kristof visited Zimbabwe he interviewed many unhappy people, who at one time thought they were making the right decision electing Mugabe. Since the election of Mugabe, Zimbabwe has gone downhill and has experienced issues in many important areas such as health and education.
In one aspect this article contradicts the article “A world on the Edge” by Amy Chua. Chua argues but that “the pursuit of free market democracy becomes an engine of potentially catastrophic ethnoationalism, pitting a frustrated “indigenous” majority, easily aroused by opportunistic, vote seeking politicians, against a resented, wealthy ethnic minority” which may have been the case, that eventually back fired on the people now under the rule of Mugabe. This article shows that the people of Zimbabwe actually liked it better “under the old racist, white regime of what was then called Rhodesia”. When the whites were the elite minority at least there were jobs for the people and money continued to come. Perhaps Zimbabwe should have "held off on democracy until free markets produce enough economic and social development to make democracy sustainable" like Chua suggests.
On page 69 of Chua's article she talks directly about this same situation in Zimbabwe. Kristof believes that in order to “pry Mr. Mugabe’s fingers from his chokehold on a lovely country” African countries and Western powers need to pressure Mugabe to give up his reign but according to Chua democracy is not the answer to Zimbabwe's problems.
Kristof talks about how Mugabe destroyed the once lush nation of Zimbabwe. Worldwide pressure forced the oppressive Rhodesian regime to give up power. Chua talks about how market dominant minorities are the Achilles heel of free market democracy. This would be the case if Mugabe would have made things better under his power but instead he is even more oppressive than the whites that ruled before him. Before it was the white minority with all of the power, and currently it is the black minority that has all of the power and money. This doesn’t really make sense because how can there be a black minority in a place that is filled with black people.
In the article “Postcard from Zimbabwe” by Nicholas Kristof, he shows how Zimbabwe has gone downhill ever since it has changed from Rhodesia. He shows how even the citizens of Zimbabwe are unpleased with the way things are going over there. One man in a village named Kizita even said “But we didn’t realize the ones we chased away were better and the ones we put in power would oppress us”. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, believes that the blacks are in the minority with Europeans taking their land.
In the article “World on Edge” Chua uses Zimbabwe as an example of an “ethical targeted anti-market reaction”. Shes shows how there is a change in the government when people are oppressed. The minority is ruling, which is bad for a country and ends in failure. President Robert Mugabe does not want any foreigners owning his land, yet they have been for generations. Chua does not believe a free election or democracy should be the answer to this. She says that he has only been reelected because of his revolt against these foreign land stealers.
Chua and Kristof disagree with when free election should take place. Kristof is for democracy and Chua thinks it results in failure. I do not know who to agree with yet I’m excited to hear more about this in class.
Allie Bostron
In his New York Times article, "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty", Kristof claims that the reason for Africa being behind in development is due to colonization. He is saying that countries were not colonized were not better off than countries that had been colonized. Referring to Chua's ideas in "A World on the Edge", she discusses the idea of free market dominant minorities. This means a country is based on its monetary fundings and its economy. Kristof discusses that a country that had not been colonized may have been successful due to the natural resources and have been developing in that manner for many generations. As opposed to a free market dominant minority, such as the United States, who develops its nation from funding and imported goods rather than harvesting all of its own natural resources, a non-colonized country has been surviving in the way it has been since the country's existence.
Kristof also discusses that the success of one's government determines the success of that country. In other words, a good government leads a developed country and bad government still needs developments in the country. A country can economically grow enormously if governed right. Chua also infers that the elite government will have success in its country and should be able to help developing countries but then claims that it will increase in ethnic conflict among nations. So apparently, those with good governments and successful nations need to help other nations as well as needing to "slow down their roll" so developing nations can "catch up" and will not be offended by the success of others and not cause conflict.
In The New York Times article “Post Card from Zimbabwe” by Kristoff we learn about the hardships a free election has caused. In Zimbabwe the people chased away the white government in hope that their own black people would govern and they would receive some type of economic relief. Instead they were granted with surprising oppression from their own people, so bad that a pregnant woman that had malaria couldn’t get medicine because she couldn’t pay two dollars for it. Here in America two dollars is nothing. A lot of the people there even say that they regret having kicked out the people that were in the government before. They are so scared of the government they have now that they don’t even want to be quoted. It is sad to see that these people were given the opportunity to have a great government but were fooled by their own people.
What the people want now is an opportunity to change their government with free elections. However, Chua would disagree with this and say that the decision to make a free election again would be stupid. Considering that that is how they ended up with this poor government it is obvious to think that making that decision would be bad. The only way in which this can work is if the people are well educated on who they want to rule them and what they propose to do.
I think that a free election is madly needed in Zimbabwe since the people are doing so bad and are so poor. Having this election can possibly bring change to the country. Even though it might take a while before they are able to see results they will see some change. It is unfair to think that there are kids that don’t have an education because of such a small fee that has to be paid and that some kids don’t even have a classroom in which they can study. The only solution here is to over throw the government.
Silvia Diaz (extra credit)
In Kristof's article "Postcard from Zimbabwe" he addresses the importance of the market minority as Chua discussed in her article" A World on Edge". Chua discusses that outsiders coming in and taking over are not welcome and are often resented.In is article he states that now that the government is now controlled by the new president (who the majority elected) cannot and does not help the economy. He states that a woman who was pregnant and had malaria, walked with her husband go get treatment and was denied because she did not have the two dollars to pay for it. They have no money to have simple things such as bandages and shots. Students can no longer go to school because their parents can not afford to pay 36 dollars that has to be charged in order for them to provide books and desk.
Chua stated in her article that the market minority, white people in this case do more good to the economy even though they are often resented. People of Zimbabwe state that they perferred Rodesia before it was Zimbabwe because they were able to get jobs and there was money coming in to the economy. There are many negative factors that may arise from implementing a free market economy and Zimbabwe is the number one example. The country has been going downhill ever since, and is facing crimes and poverty.
Even thought both Chua and Kristof agree that the market minority is a key factor in keeping the economy thriving in struggling societies, they would disagree on free elections. The reason that Zimbabwe is in the state it is in is because of free elections and democracy.
Writer Nicholas Kristof claims, in his article “Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty”, that the major reason to be attributed to African poverty is simply the lack of good governance. Kristof expresses that there are a number of different ways that can potentially bring rise to Africa’s economic standing. Arguments based around colonialism and the domestication of indigenous animals are used to possibly provide reason to Africa’s financial standing, however, what Kristof finds is that these reasons alone cannot explain why some areas of Africa may be doing better than others. Kristof explains, “What distinguishes the fastest growing economies in Africa, also including Rwanda, is simply their good governance.” Similarly, in Amy Chua’s article, “A world on the Edge”, the whole argument is based around the ruling of a market-dominated minorities. Both arguments may not go hand-in-hand with one another, but the main point that can be agreed upon is the lack of, for lack of a better term, a good “Native” Government institution that looks towards the development of its country and its people. How they go about doing that is where the difference is seen. Chua argues against market-dominated minorities, that is, outside help which may be the cause of ethnic violence and ultimately a path to regress in the country, however, believes that if aid is to come from another country, it should be a “significant and visible contribution made to local economies.” Kristof on the other hand, does not go about acknowledging, for or against, the intervention of outside help but instead focuses on the how they are to solve the problem of poverty in Africa from the inside out, whether it be from across the seas or within their lands. Kristof plainly argues that a great leader, which looks towards the betterment of his country and its people, can eventually drive the country of Africa to become the “center of economic dynamism.”
In the article “A World on Edge” by Amy Chua, she points out that the minority are dominating free markets of foreign countries and producing most of the countries’ wealth. She explains that because of this, the minority are those who are more successful rather than the actual majority of the country. Chua provides an example of the dominance of Chinese in the Philippines. She tells that Chinese who owns majority of Philippine’s corporations are the principles that are making them wealthy, causing the rest of the people in the Philippines (Filipinos) to live in poverty. Chua’s claim is highly comparable to Nicholas Kristof’s claim in his article “Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty.” In his article, Kristof claims that colonialism is the reason why Africa is behind in developing their countries, causing African countries to suffer in poverty. He states that “Liberia wasn’t formally colonized, although the immigration of former American slaves and the Firestone plantations were reminiscent of colonialism.” In other words, the country of Liberia somewhat had an outside influence from the Americans, or in this case, the minorities to help them somewhat develop. The importance of both Chua and Kristof’s claims is that dominance of minorities over a foreign country can either help or harm the country. In Chua’s claim, it highlights fact that even though the minorities are hatred for their wealth, the development they have done to that country was a huge help. On the other hand, Kristof’s claim signifies that the outsiders are in the country to only claim goods for themselves, rather than helping the country they are in to develop. The dominance of outsiders can have only two main reasons why they are dominating over a certain country: to help the country develop, or to just make themselves richer.
Another common idea that Chua and Kristof share that could help lessen a country’s poverty is a good government. Chua and Kristof both agree that the growth of a country is based on a country that is well-governed. In the beginning of Kristof’s article, he tells that the reason why Africa is currently suffering in poverty is because of bad governance. With this term, it is simply explainable that a corrupt government does not have the intention of producing growth for its nation. Instead, they just rule for the reason dominate and for also selfish reasons. A nation cannot grow in a government that functions badly simply because the authorities do not have the interest of creating economic production that could help the country grow. For a nation to be alleviated from poverty, sincere, knowledgeable, and honest authorities are needed in order to make a great and significant change for a nation.
In Nicholas D. Kristof's New York Times article titled, "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty" Kristof argues that the reason for poverty in africa is that lack of good governance and leaders. Kristof first discusses how many people would point out the fact that colonialism has prevented different countries in Africa from standing on their own two feet and flourishing by themselves. He then argues that although this may be the case there are clearly countries within Africa that have avoided such a bad turnout from foreign invaders. Similarly in Amy Chua's "A World on Edge" Chua points out that aid from other countries should be donated to the development of that country's economy. Kristof would argue against this statement and state that aid should not come from the outside, it is only from within the country itself that a country can bounce back and flourish. Kristof believes that it is the leader of the nation and their performance that reflects how the nation will survive economically. Both Chua and Kristof clearly agree that poverty can be avoided by having good leaders and a good government.
I decided to read the article by Kristoff "Post cards from ZImbabwe," and I liked this article. Even though I was surprised of what the content was. Reading about how people in Zimbabwe are suffering because these new people took over their land and changed things and now they are suffering more. They said that back them the whites had power and back when Zimbabwe was named Rhodesia, people actually had jobs and the actually had money to be using for spending. Also the things at stores were cheaper than they are now with this new leader. I mean it is not the people's fault that now they are suffering more because they did not know what it would be like for this black elite to run their country was going to be like.
It is very sad how many of them would prefer to go back to the Rhodesia times and stay that way because back then the people of ZImbabwe would not be suffering as much as they are today.
So in this case, is Zimbabwe better off by being controlled by the white elites even if the change things?
The article "Zimbabwe and the Causes of African Poverty" was certainly an interesting read. Kristof talks about three different things in his article that are affecting areas of Zimbabwe. The first issues is colonialism. With the lack of investment in human capital, we can see how things are going to be affected. Another issue he brings up is the lack of large mammals. This sounded a bit strange to me at first, but as I read on Kristof makes this issue very clear. Without large mammals, they wouldn't have anything to increase agricultural and domesticated growth. But the biggest issue is that they need a good government. Chua also agrees that we need a strong group of people to take charge and aid the impoverished. With a steady government they can maintain a good balance, and create some sort of stability for the people. If these ideas are addressed and improved on then perhaps Zimbabwe will be a much better place for people to live in.
Post a Comment