This is not intended as a post about President Trump’s recently reported remarks about “s**thole countries,” but about what a Catholic cardinal, Timothy Dolan, said in response to those remarks. The Cardinal tweeted that Martin Luther King Jr., were he alive today, would remind people that “no country is a ‘hole,’ no person unworthy of respect.” In this post, I’d like to explain why I think the Cardinal is perfectly right on the second point and absolutely wrong on the first. I’m also going to try to define a “hole,” and make a tentative list of countries which I think would qualify, at the present time. Readers are welcome to disagree, of course.
Background
Claims that President Trump, in a meeting with lawmakers last week, described Haiti, El Salvador and various African nations as “s**thole countries” have been described by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham as “basically accurate.” Let me note for the record that Senator Graham, unlike Senator Richard Durbin, who was also present at the meeting, stood up to President Trump directly when he asked why America was taking so many immigrants from these countries instead of countries like Norway. “Diversity has always been our strength, not our weakness,” declared Senator Graham. Trump has since walked back his comments, saying that he wants immigrants to come to America from everywhere. Not being an American, I have absolutely no desire to lecture Americans about which countries they should accept immigrants from, or how many people they should take. I’ll just mention in passing that about 60 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, and that of the 1,051,031 immigrants who became new legal permanent residents of the U.S. in 2015, just under 10% came from Africa, compared to 42% from other American countries, 40% from Asia and 8% from Europe. I should also add that of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, 19.1% reside in the U.S., where they make up 14.5% of the population, compared to just 10.3% of the population of Europe (2015 UN figures). In short: claims that America is not pulling its weight do not seem to be warranted by the facts.
Frankly, I was baffled by the U.S. media’s characterization of President Trump’s reference to certain countries as “s**thole countries” as racist. Have they forgotten what the term means, I wonder? OxfordDictionaries.com defines racism as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” Trump’s angry outburst was (a) directed at countries, not at “someone”, (b) directed at nations rather than races, and (c) completely devoid of the ridiculous claim that some races are “superior” to others. Likewise, Republican Rep. Mia Love’s vehement insistence that people in struggling countries are “good people” was perfectly correct, but beside the point: good people do not necessarily make a good country. A country, like a cake, is more than the sum of its constituents. Culture matters. Systems of government matter. Good people can have the misfortune to live in a country whose culture is toxic or whose government is tyrannical and evil. That doesn’t reflect on them as individuals, but it does reflect on their country.
There seems to be a strange idea circulating about that if you insult a country, you automatically insult its people. Nonsense. If you insult a country, you insult its government, not its people. The Soviet Union was a terrible country. That doesn’t mean the people living in it were terrible; it means that its government was terrible (in fact, downright evil). The same goes for Mao’s China.
So, how should we define a “hole”?
After reading about Cardinal Dolan’s response to President Trump’s recent remarks, my first reaction was: “You’ve got to be kidding me.” So North Korea is not a “hole”? Seriously? You must be joking, Your Eminence.
But then I started thinking, “How would one define a ‘hole’?” The definition which first sprang to my mind was an intuitive one: a “hole” is a country that you would never want to visit, even with all expenses paid (including plane fares, food, accommodation, trains and buses and time off work). However, I soon realized that you might be willing to visit any country, no matter how awful, if you had a nice enough hotel and plenty of armed security guards accompanying you, to protect you from danger. So I decided to stipulate that if you were visiting these countries, you had to take your family with you, and you could not travel as part of a guided tour, or take a bodyguard with you, or stay in a luxury hotel. That would be cheating – as would spending all your day hanging around inside expensive stores, museums or churches, or riding around in a chartered taxi. Instead, you had to spend as much time as possible outside, in the company of the local people. Also, you could take a guidebook, a phrase book or an electronic dictionary with you, but not one of those fancy smartphones that spits out whatever you want to say in the local language (how lazy is that!) How many countries would you cross off your list then? And which ones?
There were some countries I was pretty sure I’d never want to visit, even if you threw in some extra cash: North Korea, Afghanistan and El Salvador, to name a few. But I realized that despite my travel experience (I’ve been to over 30 countries), there were a lot of African countries which I didn’t know enough about to be able to decide whether I’d want to visit them or not. Would I want to visit Nigeria, for instance? It’s a vibrant, go-ahead country with a booming economy, but it has also been subjected to raids by the militant group Boko Haram in the north. Hmmm.
Crime and violence
So I did some digging around. I looked at the list of countries by intentional homicide rate, and I found that of the top 20 countries, a total of 17 were either in the Caribbean [US Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, Anguilla, St Vincent & the Grenadines, St Lucia and Montserrat], Central America [El Salvador, Honduras, Belize and Guatemala] or South America [Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia and Guyana]. Just two of these 20 ultra-violent countries (South Africa and Lesotho) were in Africa. One (Tuvalu) was in Oceania. Topping the homicide list was El Salvador, with a homicide rate of 108.64 – over 22 times higher than America’s and nearly ten times that of the Central American nation of Panama (11.38). The intentional homicide rate for number 20 on the list (Guyana, in South America) was 19.42 per 100,000 or about four times that of the U.S. (4.88), 20 times that of Australia and the U.K. (0.98 and 0.92, respectively) and over 60 times that of Japan (0.31). But if one is going to draw a line, it shouldn’t be an arbitrary one, so I decided to make an intentional homicide rate of 20 per 100,000 my cutoff point, leaving me with 19 countries, since Guyana was the only country on the list that fell just below that threshold. I would regard the level of violence in these top 19 countries as unacceptably high, meriting “hole” status in my book. Poverty does not account for it: as we’ve seen, as the very poorest countries in the world (which are mostly in Africa) don’t even figure on the list. Culture seems to be a more likely cause, when we consider the geographic distribution of the countries in question.
In all fairness, however, I should mention that there are plenty of Latin American and Caribbean countries which are not “holes” by the definition I’ve proposed above: in South America, Guyana, French Guiana, Bolivia and Suriname (with rather high homicide rates of 10 to 20 per 100,000), as well as Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina and Chile (with fairly moderate homicide rates of less than 10 per 100,000); in Central America, Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama (homicide rates all between 10 and 20 per 100,000); and in the Caribbean, 14 countries with homicide rates ranging from 17.39 (Dominican Republic) down to 2.78 (Martinique). Haiti belongs in this group, with a homicide rate of 10.04.
I was not successful in finding an online ranking of countries by their overall crime rate (which, by the way, is hard to measure, as international statistics are not always reliable, so it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges), but I finally came across an article by the insurance company Clements Worldwide, which listed the five countries with the highest crime rates (excluding theft) as South Africa, Honduras, Venezuela, Belize and India. The Wikipedia article on crime in South Africa is pretty sickening:
Around 49 people are murdered in South Africa every day.[6]… In the 2016/17 year, the rate of murders increased to 52 a day, with 19,016 murders recorded between April 2016 to March 2017.[11]…
The country has one of the highest rates of rape in the world, with some 65,000 rapes and other sexual assaults reported for the year ending in March 2012, or 127.6 per 100,000 people in the country.[14][15] The incidence of rape has led to the country being referred to as the “rape capital of the world“.[16] One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[17] More than 25% of South African men questioned in a survey published by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in June 2009 admitted to rape; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person.[18][19] Three out of four of those who had admitted rape indicated that they had attacked for the first time during their teenage years.[18] South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world…
Kidnapping in South Africa is common in the country with over 4,100 occurring in the 2013/2014 period, and a child going missing every five hours.
In the light of these facts, I find South Africa’s recent protest against President Trump’s “s**thole” comments to be disingenuous and hypocritical.
Regarding crime in India, the same article notes:
Sexual assault is a major concern in India. More than 33,000 rapes were reported in 2014.
The rate of these assaults is increasing. Rape is one of India’s most common crimes against women.
When evaluating whether a country is a “hole,” one obviously needs to consider whether it is a safe country for women and girls to visit. At the present time, India fails to meet this criterion. See also here.
The Safety Index and the Global Peace Index
I also had a look at the Safety Index developed by the travel company SafeAround. Of the 34 countries identified by SafeAround as dangerous or extremely dangerous, 19 were in Africa (actually, SafeAround lists 20, but Yemen is actually in Asia), 12 are in Asia, 2 (Ukraine and Russia) are in Europe, and 1 (Venezuela) is in the Americas. The 12 Asian countries are Syria*, Yemen*, Afghanistan*, Iraq*, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikstan, Myanmar and Uzbekistan, while the 19 African countries are South Sudan*, Central African Republic*, Somalia*, Democratic Republic of the Congo*, Libya, Sudan, Burundi, Mali, Eritrea, Nigeria, Mauritania, Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Rwanda, Ivory Coast (Cote d’Ivoire), Egypt, Djibouti and Guinea. I’ve asterisked the 8 countries which are very dangerous (deep red) and have a Safety Index of 20 or below. By comparison, Denmark’s is 94.7 (at the top of the list), the USA’s is 67.6, and even El Salvador’s is 50.7, while Mexico’s is 45.8 and Haiti’s is 41.9. I would unhesitantly classify the 8 asterisked countries as “holes,” and some of the remaining 21 dangerous countries as well. Since Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Pakistan all have a Safety Index of well below 30, I’ll count them as “holes” and make 30 my cutoff point. The remaining dangerous countries are more closely bunched together, and have a Safety Index of 30 to 40, so I won’t count them as “holes.” Actually, I’m being very lenient here: countries such as Burundi, Ukraine, Mali, Eritrea, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, Iran and Lebanon all fall on or slightly above the cutoff point, with values ranging from 30 to 35.
The Global Peace Index, in its 2017 report, lists 14 countries which it defines as having a “very low” state of peace: North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine, Central African Republican Republic, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (in descending order). A further 19 countries were listed as having a “low” state of peace: Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Chad, Eritrea, India, Philippines, Egypt, Mali, Burundi, Mexico, Venezuela, Israel, Palestine, Colombia, Turkey, Lebanon and Nigeria (again, in descending order). Two African countries (Botswana and Sierra Leone) received a rating of high, as did five Asian countries (Bhutan, Singapore, Malaysia, Qatar and Taiwan) and two Latin American countries (Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay). Interestingly, the United States’ ranking was 114 out of 170 countries, while China’s was 116. I think it’s fair to categorize countries with a very low state of peace as “holes.” That includes Russia, Ukraine and Pakistan.
A list of “holes” that we’ve identified so far
So where are we now? Using intentional homicide rates, the top five crime rates, the Safety Index and the Global Peace Index, we have arrived at the following list of “holes”:
Europe (2 countries):
Russia and Ukraine.
Asia (7 countries):
India, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan.
Latin America and the Caribbean (16 countries):
Caribbean: US Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, Anguilla, St Vincent & the Grenadines, St Lucia, and Montserrat.
Central America: El Salvador, Honduras, Belize and Guatemala.
South America: Venezuela, Brazil and Colombia.
Africa (8 countries):
South Africa, Lesotho, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya and Sudan.
Oceania:
Tuvalu.
Why poverty makes more “holes”
Are we done yet? No. Extreme poverty can also make a country a “hole.” So I had a look at the Wikipedia’s list of countries by GDP per capita, as measured by PPP. Actually, there were three lists, put out by the IMF, the World Bank and the CIA. In the end, I decided to use the CIA’s list, because it contained the most countries (198 altogether). I then pondered where to draw my cutoff point. Some useful reference points were provided by the following countries: North Korea 1,800 dollars, Afghanistan 2,000 dollars and Zimbabwe 2,100 dollars. I think most people would consider these countries to be economic hellholes, quite apart from their political systems or their lack of safety. But then again, Uganda’s per capita GDP in PPP terms was the same as Zimbabwe’s. I finally decided to make 2,000 dollars per capita my non-arbitrary cutoff point. It’s a pretty modest cutoff point, really, when you consider that Bangladesh has a per capita GDP (in PPP terms) of 3,600 dollars. That of Africa as a whole is 6,136 dollars. India’s is 6,200 dollars, that of the Philippines is 7,300 dollars, while even El Salvador’s is 8,500 dollars. Of the 26 countries with a per capita GDP of 2,000 dollars or less, 22 are African countries (South Sudan, Benin, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Mali, The Gambia, Ethiopia, Comoros, Sierra Leone, Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mozambique, Guinea, Malawi, Eritrea, Niger, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Central African Republic, Somalia), two are Asian (Afghanistan and North Korea) and one is in the Americas (Haiti).
So the bad news is that Africa now has 26 “hole” countries: South Africa, Lesotho, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Benin, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Mali, The Gambia, Ethiopia, Comoros, Sierra Leone, Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mozambique, Guinea, Malawi, Eritrea, Niger, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Central African Republic and Somalia. That’s nearly half of the countries of Africa. (These 26 countries have a combined population of around 523 million, or around 43% of the total population of Africa.) Also, Haiti has been added to the list of Caribbean “holes,” on account of its very low GDP per capita.
There is some good news on the horizon, however: real GDP growth rates per capita (PPP) for many African countries are spectacularly high. Here are the World Bank figures for annual growth rates for the period 1990 to 2014: Equatorial Guinea 17.79%, Cape Verde 7.81%, Mauritius 5.72%, Ethiopia 5.43%, Uganda 5.41%, Ghana 5.09%, Lesotho 4.88%, Tunisia 4.85%, Burkina Faso 4.76%, Chad 4.74%, Nigeria 4.71%, Rwanda 4.71%, Morocco 4.61%, Seychelles 4.53%, Egypt 4.24%, Namibia 4.22%, Tanzania 4.17%, Zambia 4.07%, Malawi 3.61%, Mali 3.45%, Sierra Leone 3.36%, Benin 3.26%, Mauritania 3.26%, Algeria 3.21%, Swaziland 3.00%. That’s 25 out of 54 countries in Africa with a real GDP per capita (PPP) growth rate of 3% or more. [Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn’t list any figures for the CIA.] [Updated – VJT.]
What that means is that many African countries which are “holes” now, because of their very low GDP per capita, won’t remain that way for very much longer. In ten years, the list of “holes” will be much shorter. (For example: a country with a current GDP per capita (PPP) of 1,228 dollars, which is growing at 5% per year, will reach 2,000 dollars and climb out of “hole” status in the space of just ten years.)
UPDATE: The bad news, however, is that if we look at the world as a whole, we find that its GDP per capita (PPP) grew at an annual growth rate of 4.34%, which was exceeded by just 14 of these African countries. Also, if we look at the 42 countries whose GDP for per capita (PPP) grew at an annual rate of less than 3% for 1990-2014, we find that 19 of those countries were African countries: South Africa 2.82%, Senegal 2.79%, Kenya 2.76%, Republic of the Congo 2.59%, Guinea 2.18%, Cameroon 2.14%, The Gambia 2.14%, Togo 2.08%, Djibouti 2.05%, Niger 1.98%, Gabon 1.89%, Cote d’Ivoire 1.88%, Comoros 1.54%, Guinea-Bissau 1.48%, Madagascar 1.23%, Burundi 0.53%, Zimbabwe 0.39%, Central African Republic -0.07%, Democratic Republic -0.39%. What’s more, nine of these countries belong to the 22 countries identified above as having a GDP per capita (PPP) of 2,000 dollars or less.)
Low freedom ratings make three more holes in Asia, and one in Africa [UPDATE]
A country may also be described as a “hole” if it is totally unfree. Freedom House, in its 2016 Table of Country Scores, gives 10 countries (not counting disputed territories such as Tibet, Crimea and Pakistani Kashmir) the worst possible rating (7) in all three of its categories: political rights, civil liberties and freedom rating. The countries are Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Sudan, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabia. Most of these countries are already on our list, but four are not. Three of these (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Saudi Arabia) are in Asia, while one (Equatorial Guinea) is in Africa.
So, what counts as a “hole” and how many countries are “holes”?
We now have two European “holes,” 10 Asian ones, 17 from the Americas, 27 from Africa and one from Oceania, making a total of 55, out of 200-odd countries. (Updated) That’s about a quarter of the world’s countries. A “hole” can be non-arbitrarily defined as a country which:
(i) has an intentional homicide rate of at least 20 per 100,000 people; or
(ii) has a very high [top five] overall crime rate (excluding theft); or
(iii) has a Safety Index of 30 or less; or
(iv) has a Global Peace Index of “very low”; or
(v) has a GDP per capita of 2,000 dollars or less in PPP terms; or
(vi) has the worst possible rating (7) from Freedom House in political rights, civil liberties and its Freedom Rating. (Updated)
Whose fault is it, and does it matter?
Finally, I’d like to reiterate that calling a country a “hole” doesn’t necessarily mean that its misfortunes are entirely, or even principally, its fault. Some countries are innocent victims of meddling by foreign powers; others are victimized by dictators that seize power.
Nevertheless, if we’re really being honest, I think we’d have to admit that in today’s world, most countries’ troubles are largely home-grown, being generally caused by dysfunctional cultural values, religious bigotry and political corruption. It is easy to point the finger of blame at outside forces: the legacy of Columbus, or of slavery, or of colonialism, or of Pax Americana. And let us acknowledge that tens of millions died as a result of the conquest of the Americas and the slave trade, not to mention the awful toll of colonialism in the Belgian Congo and in British India.
But let’s face facts: Columbus lived 500 years ago, slavery was abolished in most countries well before 1900, and the majority of African countries have been independent for at least 50 years. There has to be a time limit on blaming past injustices for present misfortunes. If 50 years isn’t enough time for a country to turn itself from a “hole” into a thrifty but economically and politically stable country, then I ask: what is?
“What about poverty in Africa?” you ask. Surely the West is principally responsible for that? The Wikipedia article Economy of Africa paints a different picture, however. Consider this inconvenient fact, taken from the article: “Although Africa and Asia had similar levels of income in the 1960s, Asia has since outpaced Africa.” It’s surely fair to ask why. The article continues:
“One school of economists argues that Asia’s superior economic development lies in local investment. Corruption in Africa consists primarily of extracting economic rent and moving the resulting financial capital overseas instead of investing at home; the stereotype of African dictators with Swiss bank accounts is often accurate.”
That sounds like a home-grown problem to me.
Colonialism is often blamed for Africa’s woes. But consider this fact:
“Analysis of the economies of African states finds that independent states such as Liberia and Ethiopia did not have better economic performance than their post-colonial counterparts.”
The effects of colonialism were decidedly mixed. The colonialists did lots of evil things, but it was what they didn’t do that caused more harm to Africa, with many historians arguing that they should have done more to develop Africa’s infrastructure and open up the continent:
Historians L. H. Gann and Peter Duignan have argued that Africa probably benefited from colonialism on balance. Although it had its faults, colonialism was probably “one of the most efficacious engines for cultural diffusion in world history”.[30] These views, however, are controversial and are rejected by some who, on balance, see colonialism as bad. The economic historian David Kenneth Fieldhouse has taken a kind of middle position, arguing that the effects of colonialism were actually limited and their main weakness wasn’t in deliberate underdevelopment but in what it failed to do.[31] Niall Ferguson agrees with his last point, arguing that colonialism’s main weaknesses were sins of omission.[32]
Language diversity is also a huge problem in Africa:
“African countries suffer from communication difficulties caused by language diversity. Greenberg’s diversity index is the chance that two randomly selected people would have different mother tongues. Out of the most diverse 25 countries according to this index, 18 (72%) are African.[40] This includes 12 countries for which Greenberg’s diversity index exceeds 0.9, meaning that a pair of randomly selected people will have less than 10% chance of having the same mother tongue. However, the primary language of government, political debate, academic discourse, and administration is often the language of the former colonial powers; English, French, or Portuguese.”
Maybe some readers would still argue that the West (including America) should give more money to Africa. Not so fast:
“Growing evidence shows that foreign aid has made the continent poorer. One of the biggest critics of the aid development model is economist Dambiso Moyo (a Zambian economist based in the US), who introduced the Dead Aid model, which highlights how foreign aid has been a deterrent for local development.”
Economic protectionism in developed countries hampers Africa’s growth, as well:
“When developing countries have harvested agricultural produce at low cost, they generally do not export as much as would be expected. Abundant farm subsidies and high import tariffs in the developed world, most notably those set by Japan, the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, and the United States Department of Agriculture, are thought to be the cause. Although these subsidies and tariffs have been gradually reduced, they remain high.”
Trade, rather than aid, is the best way to help Africa escape poverty. To the extent that the West is harming Africa, it is largely by refusing to trade with it. And if there is one country that deserves much of the credit for Africa’s astonishing growth in recent years, it is China, which has stepped up its volume of trade with Africa and invested heavily in local infrastructure.
A plea for balance
As for US intervention in El Salvador: let us remember that its UN-brokered peace agreement was signed back in 1992, more than a quarter of a century ago. Despite decades of peace, the GDP growth rate in El Salvador averaged a measly 0.72 percent from 1990 until 2017. That can hardly be America’s fault. Nor can the sky-high homicide rate be blamed on America.
And let’s hear both sides of the story, too. Quartz magazine has just published a long and indignant tirade enumerating the past wrongs suffered by Haiti at America’s hands, including a 19-year occupation by U.S. marines from 1915-1934, during which thousands of innocent people died under a racist government. But the article fails to mention that the U.S. occupation dramatically improved the island’s infrastructure: “1700 km of roads were made usable, 189 bridges were built, many irrigation canals were rehabilitated, hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities.” Let’s give credit where credit’s due, I say. And let’s also ask, fearlessly: what is it that continues to hold some countries (like Haiti) back, long after the Marines departed?
And above all: let us not be afraid of calling a “hole” what it really is. Before we can change the world for the better, we need to confront it in all its ugliness. And with that, I’d like to conclude my response to Cardinal Dolan. Over to you.
dazz,
Shout and flail your arms all you want
Madrid should have followed Canada’s lead and allow a free and unimpeded referendum
From what I understand: the referendum would almost certainly have failed… now all bets are off!
And if it had suceeded… so what who cares?! Spain and Catelonia both would have remained under an EU umbrella with open borders, so what’s the big deal?
I know!
Spain remains a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of Catalonia, draining its economic life’s blood no differently than Serbia did to Croatia!
If the referendum had suceeded, Spain would have defaulted on its loans no differently than Greece
Well one difference actually: Spain is too big to fail and the EU would have imploded as German taxpayers would have revolted! What the hell: Germans would have to again push back retirement age… from 65 to 67 would no longer suffice! Maybe 70 or 75 just to keep the EU apparatchiki in Brussels employed and the EU experiment afloat?!
I think not! Resurrect the EEC and damn the EU to perdition
Yes… that is wrong too!
As a matter of fact, the Leftards are deliberately operating those boats?
Those NGOs are owned and operated by the Left
OK OK… I think I recognize where our conversation has derailed
So we both agree that the Left are financing and operating the Taxi Service for migrants.
What you seem to misunderstand – is that the leadership of the Left has openly expressed their motives for doing so.
They want to transform Europe into a muticultural society such that national identity becomes a historical relic of the past and national boundaries make no more sense.
They are quite publicly open and emphatic about their motives.
Of course – any such policy defies common sense and represents a collective suicide pact along Jonestown lines except on a much larger scale.
Of course – my antipathy to the European Left goes further than than you could appreciate. A major plank of their political platform is Jew-hatred.
Goddamit – now do you understand why I maintain that Europe is repeating the history of the Weimar Republik?!
What makes you assume that?
Do you think Brexit was the result of it? Or a prevention?
Holy shit, you’re a clueless asshole. Catalonia contributes about the same as most of the other richer regions like Balears and… wait for it… MADRID!
I’m done talking to you. Shove your alternative facts where the sun don’t shine
Let us examine some hard data with resolute reason
Fact:
While Catalans only account for about 16 percent of the Spanish population, Catalonia makes a hefty contribution to the overall Spanish economy, making 223.6 billion euros ($262.96 billion) a year, according to the regional government. This is around 20 percent of its total gross domestic product (GDP). Larger than the contribution that California makes to the whole United States.
Fact:
…the region would quickly gain about 16 billion euros yearly in the case of a split, as they would no longer have to pay taxes to Spain. This would then result in a loss of about 2 percent to the Spanish GDP (gross domestic product) yearly.
Fact:
At the same time, Catalonia could take a potential hit, as 35.5 percent of Catalan exports are to the Spanish market. Catalonia would also have pay to create new state structures (embassies, central banks, etc.) which carry a large price tag.
Uhmmm – except both Spain and Catelonia would remain in an EU with open borders. So it is unclear why any trade to Spain would be reduced unless Spain was subsidizing Catelonia somehow in an open European market.
That makes no sense whatsoever!
Catelonia’s costs would be less significant than Spains in the long run
What about debt – if Catelonia and Spain share the debt on a per capita i.e. proportion of the population basis: Spain loses and Catelonia comes out much further ahead.
If the EU were to decide not to include Catelonia amoung their members – watch out! The EU itself goes down a shithole of historic proportions. Not that it matters – Spain’s default on its debts would bring the EU down immediately. (that would explain the EU’s reluctance to allow democracy to come to the fore)
The argument is moot – watch out for the upcoming Italian elections! Spain will be as side-show
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/heres-how-bad-economically-a-spain-catalonia-split-could-really-be.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/327063/gross-domestic-product-in-catalonia-and-spain/
https://www.ft.com/content/62118282-a35a-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2
Out of curiosity, which facts in particular would you be disagreeing with?
Here, let me spoon feed you again:
https://www.lainformacion.com/economia/Madrid-PIB-regiones-Baleares-Cataluna_0_940706639.html
If you do say so yourself. How Trumpian you are!
Me: dazz: Well, if that is in fact true I can assure you that no one will be more outraged than the “leftards” who support the work of NGO’s that are actually rescuing people. Or you think that’s wrong too?
holy fucking shit. You’re a god damn sociopath.
Get bent!
Please do not quote me out of context! I never claimed to be the source of “some very intelligent and insightful analysis”
I was claiming Mark Steyn to be the source of “some very intelligent and insightful analysis”
ITMT – Please make sure you really understand my opinion of Trump before you comment
Hmmm that is the best you can do?
I note with bemusement you have failed to contradict one fact I have cited.
Let me continue… Maybe you can contradict this fact:
Behold a Leftard Organization
https://www.transparency.org/
It is also an NGO – which participated in human trafficking
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-italy-ngo/italy-seizes-ngo-rescue-boat-for-allegedly-aiding-illegal-migration-idUSKBN1AI21B
Ah yes… silence speaks volumes
Euro madness is just that: Leftard Madness
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/migrants-and-madness-in-the-med/
It would appear my silent gainsayers are writhing in the talons of my indisputable syllogisms
🙂
It’s a possibility.
ah yes the miracle of compounding interest!
Thank you Frau Merkel!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime/violent-crime-rises-in-germany-and-is-attributed-to-refugees-idUSKBN1ES16J
Ha Ha Ha…
LMFAO, you are.. yes, onlookers guessed it: fucking retarded!
dazz,
You have yet to contradict or correct:
1 – any fact I ever cited
2 – any conclusion I ever posted
let me know when you ever get around to that…
I apologize for failing to answer earlier:
I suggest Canada offers a wonderful model worthy of emulation for Europe, Spain in particular
Quebec separatists wanted a referendum and they got two.
They even loaded the question and stifled free press , and still they lost.
Their argument was canny: they suggested they should be masters of their own home will maintaining cordial economic relations with Canada just like member states of the EU manage
I have to admit, their thesis made sense and I would not be bent out of shape if Quebec had separated
What surprises me is the EU’s disregard of brutal violence and the extirpation of democracy by Madrid in Catalanonia.
So let me return the question: your thoughts por favor regarding Madrid’s vicious trampling of freedom and democracy in Catalonia? And why the big deal if both will remain under an EU umbrella?
Also; http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/why-i-disagree-with-cardinal-dolans-remark-that-no-country-is-a-hole/comment-page-4/#comment-211242
I also understand that evidence provided above undeniably proves that Left Wing European NGOs precipitated a humanitarian crisis by operating a taxi service for human traffickers just outside Libyan territorial waters
Italy says so and Libya says so
These irresponsible actions by Left Wing NGOs spurred a new human migration away from the closed Balkan route, which ended in needless death and suffering by migrants including a new slave trade centred in Libya which is a result of NGO interference
Yet these NGOs have no shame and refuse to admit culpability . If they had not interfered, these economic migrants would have remained home
Economic? Yes! At a minimum, the African migrants are 80% economic: probably much higher!
Anyone: I welcome correction although it would appear rebuttal is not possible
Alan: for your perusal
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11787/france-prison-islam-terrorism
There goes the narrative
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10404/france-no-go-zones
Question to my gainsayers?
Is Gatestone wrong? Who is correct, Allan or me?
https://www.themaven.net/mishtalk/economics/debate-over-no-go-sharia-zones-in-sweden-france-fake-news-or-not-bO2F7GftJUOvZLL96DnJJQ
My definition of a shithole is a country where you can be arrested for expressing a political opinion. Never mind whether it is true or not.
And if you knew jack shit of what’s going on in Catalunya you would realise this doesn’t apply to the Catalan conflict.
There are separate issues above, some that interest me, some I have a little first-hand knowledge (enough for an anecdote or two) and some I’m not informed enough on to comment usefully. I’ve also other stuff I need to do but I’ll chip in as I have time.
Catalunya!
I see Catalonia was a principality from medieval times before coming under direct Spanish rule in 1714. The modern independence movement stems from 1922 when the independence party was founded. Prior to the Spanish Civil War, Catalans allied with the Republicans (as did the Basques) on the understanding that autonomy would be granted. When Franco defeated the Republicans, until his death in 1975, Catalans were again repressed and the Catalan language banned. Catalonia then became an autonomous province and all was sweetness and light till 2010.
The Spanish Constitutional Court rewrote the previously agreed Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and it has been all downhill from there. My personal thought is the situation became needlessly polarised by the Constitutional Court’s action and nobody with influence seems capable of looking for compromise.
Catalans aren’t stupid. They see that autonomy within Spain is a sensible position between outright independence and direct Spanish rule. But they are proud and they have a legitimate and historical claim.
It would appear the commonalities between Canada’s Quebec and Spain’s Catalonia are remarkable.
Mind you – Canada would never be so stupid as to poke a finger into Quebec’s eye and unilaterally abrogate any previously negotiated status of conditional autonomy.
Catalonia first appears to be politically correct.
petrushka,
Not sure what you mean? Could you explain a bit?
The Constitutional Court didn’t rewrite the Statute of Autonomy, it dictamined 14 (out of 223) articles were unconstitutional. But I don’t think that played that big of a role in the growth of the independentist movement: the stats show that it wasn’t until 2012 that independentism became much more popular.
So what happened then? It’s true that a lot of the movement stems from the opposition and fight against Franquism. After the transition to democracy and the approval of the first autonomy statute in Catalonia Convergència i Unió, the political party of Jordi Pujol, Artur Mas and Carles Puigdemont dominated the elections and had control of the Catalan Parliament for most of the democratic era. They were also key actors in the spanish government in many elections, helping both the socialists (PSOE) and conservatives (PP) achieve the necessary support in the spanish parliament to form a government. We now know that particularly PP & CiU (although every other party had some involvement to varying degrees) had established a corrupted system of illegal commissions in exchange of public contracts that have netted them billions.
Back in 2005 Joan Maragall publicly accused the CiU government and Artur Mas of demanding a 3% commission to public contractors
CiU’s prosecution in the Palau case and the whole Pujol family being investigated for massive corruption charges put an end to the status quo and that’s when CiU became pro independency. This established institutional corruption system is, ironically, a reminiscence of Franco’s dictatorship. The “Molt Honorables” in Convergència i Unió were more than happy to play by the unwritten franquist law of looting public funds for eons.
In a 2002 book named “Què pensa Artur Mas” (What does Artur Mas think?) he wrote: “The way I see it the concept of independency is outdated and a bit rusty”
“It would be irresponsible to lead the country towards a path that would cause collective frustration” “Spain is not Yugoslavia. Moreover, there are sufficient bonds and shared history between Spain and Catalonia to consider our common background as the catalan demographic composition shows”
So there’s that. Of course that simple move, a U turn of CiU towards independentism meant that over a million of their voters became independentists overnight, just like sheep following his leader. So much for the right to decide! Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the right to decide and I don’t have a better “solution” that a referendum, but anyone who thinks a referendum would put an end to this madness is simply fooling himself.
Truth is independentists have been a minority until CiU decided to jump into the bandwagon to divert the attention from their court cases and the blatant corruption that riddled their stints in the government.
As Spain slowly purges the corrupt SOBs and keeps leaving Franquism behind, and as Catalonia gets more and more autonomy, independentists have somehow managed to convince millions that Spain is still the same franquist shithole (how Trumpian of me) that set the table for them to rob their voters shamelessly. It’s unbelievable. They know it’s now or never. They know in a generation Franquisim will be dead and buried forever and they won’t have their imaginary nemesis for their bullshit negative argument: that’s a Spain Catalans will have no reason to want to depart from.
So that’s what the “procés” is all about: it’s now or never, keep confronting, lying, appealing to emotion and retarded nationalistic pride to get a reaction from the retarded nationalists on the other side: make Rajoy’s PP strong in the process so they can keep playing the victims. Look how Joan Tardà, avid independentist said back in 2012 “The application of the article 155 (suspension of the catalan autonomy) would be great for us”
http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171023/joan-tarda-afirmo-2012-articulo-155-iria-cona-ganar-apoyo-independencia-6374199
They got what they wanted: nobody talks about corruption now, or unemployment, it’s all independence,independence,independence.
Well, fuck you Catalonia, fuck you Spain, go fuck your stupid flags and shove your nationalist pride up your asses. OK, I feel much better now 🙂
dazz,
Dazz,
The part I do not get: what’s the big deal? So what, who cares if a post-modern EU delegates the notion of national identity into the historical trash bin?
Frankly, I wouldn’t be upset if Italy broke up; ditto Germany. Let Europe operate as before: before the notion of Nation State was invented by Napoleon
BTW… Barcelona has one of the greatest art schools in Europe
My son’s girlfriend is studying there for a year and the stories she narrates are unbelievable. She explains how dangerous it has become for a young fair-haired blue eyed girl to walk the streets of this major European city – a former epicentre of art and culture.
What’s even more unbelievable would be that European Leftists would interrupt me right about now, and accuse me of racism even though I have not described those who are harassing this naive Canadian girl.
Why would that be? Why would I be accused of racism even though her tormentors remain anonymous? Because everyone recognizes that Europe’s new now poses new threats by newcomers, threats which did not exist until recently before the floods of migrants to Europe.
Because this report makes me sound like Trump talking about Mexicans, that would post hoc propter hoc establish I am no less a racist than Trump, when all I have done is describe the plight of a young Canadian visitor to Barcelona in general terms.
Ignore for a moment the recent Islamist terrorist attack there.
Because of the way you described this woman.
Interesting – thank you – that never occurred to me. My intent was never to identify phenotype as particularly significant to this story. The same narrative would have applied to darker-hued brunettes… more so, even.
From what I read – migrant women are subjected to worse abuse when perceived as compromising “Islamist”-values (note I did not say “Muslim” values).
What intrigues me is your immediate assumption that local “tall, dark and handsome” Spaniards (OK I really meant Catalonians) could not immediately be suspect in this narration of inappropriate attraction to a blonde, blue-eyed exotic beauty.
I submit that in fact you are guilty of subtle racism by making your immediate assumptions, assumptions which I myself did not make.
I submit (in fact) that you’re an utter dipshit and that your last post (as well as numerous others in this thread) should be guanoed.
And, of course, you’re a racist as well. That simple assumption explains every one of your posts here, at any rate.
Thank you for your implicit concession of defeat
@ Alan Fox
It would appear adjudication is required.
First, I request that walto’s post remains standing and is not moved to guano. I prefer that his ad homina remain part of the public record.
Regarding public record – I ask you (or anybody else) to please indicate where ANY post of mine could be misconstrued as racist. If so – I myself will request immediate removal to guano and issue an immediate and unreserved public apology.
Thank you
As i’ve already mentioned, Tom, you apparently have no idea at all what the expression ‘implicit concession of defeat’ means. I guess that’s unsurprising because you’re kind of a dim bulb.
Pretty much all of them, imo. The last one, involving dark hordes who can’t seem to resist the attraction of a young blue-eyed blonde, was particularly disgusting, though.
and yet again – I thank you!
He has some sound “facts & syllogisms” though, LMFAO
dazz – I do hope you and I can bury the hatchet. I was particularly impressed by your explanation of the political cynicism underlying recent resurgence in Catalonian independence in order to distract the lumpen-proletariat from egregious corruption.
I did pose you some questions in earnest which I hope you deem worthy of a reply.
Tom, I take from the Thatcher (eewww) quote that you found my post ‘particularly wounding.’ May it do you some good then. You have some serious soul-searching to do, imho.
Wow – I am gobstopped!
Your choice of vocabulary betrays a dark side to you which would fascinate any Freudian!
Dear me!
I never said any such thing – EVER!
However the fact that you just did – betrays much!
Please refer back to the original post in question where I maintained that:
I find your own particular turn of phrase particularly disturbing. Frankly, I am “triggered”.
again I thank you for confirming your implicit concession of defeat!
You admit your intent was to wound by insult –
A wise Zen koan addresses how one is to regard the insults of inferiours, which goes something along the lines of
Q.E.D.
I take it walto has retreated from the field of battle
I repeat my earlier request:
Be advised – that the distinction between “German” and “Nazi” happens to be a particularly sensitive one for me.
That would explain my great pains and efforts to parse my words carefully
In similar fashion I distinguish between “Islamist” a political ideology and “Islam” a religious creed.
The first is antithetical to Western civilization – IMHO. The second is NOT!
There are many who agree with me on the first and disagree with me on the latter, including former Muslims.
That is neither here nor there – given the opinion of a solitary participant on this particular forum does not really count for much.
What does concern me is the possibility how any of my comments may have been misconstrued as racist.
Thanks in advance
There’s a difference between “guano-worthy racist” and just “racist”. I have not seen any “guano-worthy racist” posts from you.
Personally, I’ve been inclined to agree with walto’s assessment of your posts. Did walto break the rules — fortunately, your request to keep walto’s posts here gave me a reprieve on making that judgment.
Hi Neil
This is particularly concerning
I suggested that unemployed and disenchanted swarthy Spaniards could just as easily have been the tormentors of that exotic Canadian visitor to Barcelona.
The immediate understanding by others, including the Left, that such could not be the case does not betray racism on my part.
Let’s be clear here:
The Left is decidedly “racist” – the racism of reduced expectations in their invocation of cultural relativism.
Meanwhile – If you or any can point out where any post of mine does indeed indicate any sort of racism on my part – I would be grateful
I thank you in advance