Do you feel that their is racial bias in this article (below) or if the information they present is in fact valid?

I am looking to hear from people who have actually lived in or know other people who live in the places in Africa which are listed in the article.

Is it a coincedence that the "best" country is a typically scandinavian country inhabited mostly by blondes, other nordic europeans.. descendents of Vikings.. Whereas the worst countries to live in are largly made up of black inhabitants?

or do you think this article is racially biased?

Things to consider/think about:
Why did they refer to the whole continent of Africa and AIDs when there are specific countries they have referred to?

Why is their no data regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Liberia? Could the US intervention and other wars have affected this data or destroyed it?

State your case..
----------------------------------------------------

Britain 12th best place to live but Norway top
Thu 15 July, 2004 11:14

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands ranked as the best five countries to live in but Africa's quality of life plummeted because of AIDS, said a U.N. report released on Thursday.

The United States was ranked in eighth place, a drop of one position from 2003 in the report that rates not only per-capita income but also educational levels, health care and life expectancy in measuring a nation's well-being.

The Human Development Index, prepared by the U.N. Development Program, is issued annually and includes every country for which statistics are available.

Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Liberia were among nations not included because of lack of data.

Norway has led the list for the past four years.

Aside from the overall index, the report produces indicators on women's equality, income inequality and consumption, poverty and other categories that countries use to measure development. In Canada, for example, the index has been used in advertisements to attract business.

The industrialised nations as usual were in the top 20, their ratings close to one another. Belgium was in sixth place, followed by Iceland, the United States, Japan, Ireland, Switzerland, Britain, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, New Zealand, Germany and Spain.

At the bottom of the list for the seventh year was Sierra Leone, emerging from a decade of civil war. Right above it were Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and Burundi.

The world's newest nation, East Timor, was included for the first time and ranked 158th out of 177 countries.

In Africa, the AIDS crisis reduced the average life expectancy in many countries to 40 years or less, making it the biggest factor in the decline of overall human development indicators, the report said. In comparison, the average life expectancy in Norway was 79 years.

At least 20 nations suffered development reversals since 1990, 13 of them in Africa: Angola, Central African Republic, Lesotho, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, the report said.

"The AIDS crisis cripples states at all levels because the disease attacks people in their most productive years," said Mark Malloch Brown, head of U.N. Development Program.

In Latin American and Caribbean nations, Barbados again headed the list, in 29th place. Argentina ranked 34th, Chile, 43; Costa Rica, 45; Uruguay, 46; Bahamas, 51; Cuba, 52; Mexico, 53; Venezuela, 68. Surprisingly, Brazil dropped to 72nd place, one above Colombia, compared to last year when it ranked 65th.

In Asia, Hong Kong was in 23rd place and Singapore in 25th, South Korea in 28th, Thailand, 76; Philippines, 83; China, 94; India 127; Bangladesh 138 and Pakistan 142.

In the Middle East, Israel led the list in 22nd place, followed by Cyprus in 30th place, Bahrain, 40; Kuwait, 44; Qatar, 47; United Arab Emirates, 49; Libya, 58; Oman 74; Saudi Arabia, 77; Lebanon, 80; Jordan, 90; Tunisia, 92; Palestinian territories 102; Syria, 106; Algeria, 108; Egypt, 120; Morocco, 125 and Yemen, 149.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...9&section=news

@FAERY1 I READ IT IN THE PAPER THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY, THEY WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE HIV TEST THAT ARE COMING FROM CERTAIN PARTS OF AFRICA.

I WAS ANGRY YES IT IS BIASED, THEY ARE ATTACKING AFRICA PERIOD SO IN A SENCE THEY ARE ATTACKING BLACKS.

In india the aids case is just as near bad but it is silenced in a political sence.

if they are going to test might i say the Africans why not test the indians as well:?

it seems that it is ok for non blacks to bring diseases in britain, white people on a whole go on holidays on binge drinking and orgies, lots of them do not use protection, but i bet when they catch anything they are going to say the Africans give it to them or is spreading it in their country, only when that is further from the truth, the Africans were not their when they are having unprotected sex.:?

LOL @peacemaker

I hear that in the US, no african person is allowed to donate blood to the redcross amd that even if you as much as kiss an african, whether you are black american or otherwise, you would be banned from donating blood. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Why oh why do people think every african is HIV positive? why oh why do people like to portray africans as these sex crazed animals that have no control over their passions? I think that article is highly racist and the only people they are lying to is themselves. At the end of the day, we are not the ones going around having one night stands and indiscriminate sex and having sex with animals and all sort of perevesions!! tufiakwa!

faery1 wrote:

Why do you think that mostBlacks and most non-whites embrace a religion or spirituality so readily?...You'd be surprised as to which countries are really advanced...people who don't suffer enough learn nothing in my opinion...and those who have it easy as most do in th west do in my opinion tend to all think the same, and express themselves the same way...and are all LEAD.

Peacemaker wrote:
I hope you are not referring to me as "ignorant" or making the suggestion. I did not write this article, I posted it for discussion to hear what people think. Please refrain from insults.

I will reply to the rest of your post later.

Thanks

faery1 wrote: peacemaker, permisssion to send that classical piece to a friend of mine? it's really funny

@JONHNCROW234

"In india the aids case is just as near bad but it is silenced in a political sence.

if they are going to test might i say the Africans why not test the indians as well:?
"

I agree, if the are going to test one group of people, they should be testing them all. If in fact it is the disease they are trying to contral rather thant the people, theoretically they should be testing everyone who comes from a country rampant with the disease.

[line]

@fazuan

"I hear that in the US, no african person is allowed to donate blood to the redcross amd that even if you as much as kiss an african, whether you are black american or otherwise, you would be banned from donating blood. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. "

Where have you heard this? Have you any links to share? I would like to know more


[line]


@Peacemaker

Probably not....what is true more than likely is that the best countries are then ones than have had less foreign interventions in their histories.

Quote:

I should correctlysay that they have been allowed to develop almost on their own.

I tend to think their views of what is "best" are in themselves Eurocentric. Notice how they refrained from explaining it unless you want to read the 250 page report. They vaguely expressed soemthing on women's equality to lead people in the direction that the rest of the requirements were valid/modernized.

I also think that "modernity" has to do more with the nations that have developed last/most recent. The nordic nations have only been around for about 10,000 years, whereas African nations have been around longer.The nordic nations have developed not completely on their own, but recently (human history wise) and in the absense of serious competition other than with themselves.

Not to be impolite, but I dont see nations who want to go invade north europe other than their own surrounding nations. Who wants to live in raining, cold, and gray conditions of nordic europe compared to that of the sunnier parts of Africa, Caribean, Indonesiaand S. America? This is not often mentioned, but I view it as a factor on who gets invaded.

@Peacemaker

Africa was doing quite nicely before the white man came along...The Philippines was almost a paradise before technology hit their shores, and the Native Americas where not far off societal perfection before you know what.

I believe that the white man came from Africa at some point, they didnt just pop out of no where and decide to take over, so I cant really say I agree entirely with this comment. However I do agree that the places which have been invaded by white people are often beautiful places with a world of resources that are not available in nordic european countries.

I also believe that because the white man is white that he is more "visible" than other people who have probably invaded black nations in the past. There is no doubt in my mind that inside Africa and many other places in the world, there are invations that go between people of similar racial background which make it more difficult to trace the indiginous peoples who existed in this area beforehand. The "winners" always rewrite the history with themselves as the heros and portray it as if it is their land. Its not as easy when it comes to people of visually different ethnic background.

White people are such a contrast that they are more visible. The same goes for Euro countrieswhich have had numerous invasions from nations nearby. The racial/ethnic/visual differences aggravate the situation making it more obvious and less forgivable to subsequent generations. In nations where the conflict is of the same race, people are more likely to form a new culture in subsequent generations. (minus religious conflicts of course.)

For Native americans, there is evidence that suggests that they migrated to N. America from Asian countries (prehaps present day China or so) . I tend to wonder if their were any people living in N. America before they arrived and if so, where they killed off or married in or integrated in another way? People in Hawaii still do resemble people from Asians countries. Many native american facial features (cheeks, hair type)seem to resemble people from Asian countries..

It is my believe that societies which dwell on technology area reflection transplanted people who have made "quick fixes" to adjust to their living environment rather than evolving living habits whichallow more"natural adjustments" to live peacefully within their own environment. Nomadic peoples can roam from one city to the next and destroy every resource in their wake and leave a trail of garbagebut they never see the consequences because they keep moving. At this point, this type of "exploration" doesnt work anymore since we have apparently reached the limitations of earthly land exploration.

As far as Africa/Philippines being a paradise beforehand, I cant really comment since there is little or no recorded history of this.

@Peacemaker

What certainly isn't a coincidence is that the "spiritually advanced" nations have been raped and pillaged for long time now.

Interesting, I h ave never heard anyone refer to a place as spiritually advanced though I have had my personal thoughts about it. Have you ever heard this quote?

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be mowed down in the crossfire."

Its the first thing that comes to my mind when I read this post. No offense intended.. just a thought.

@fazuan

sorry for the jumpiness.. im a lil on edge from my prior experiences! sure pass on as u like..