2 ms·

You're wrong, but I don't want to argue anymore. If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion

You're wrong, but I don't want to argue anymore. If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I disagree completely, but trying to prove someone on the internet wrong is something I'd rather not spend my time on.

Maktab 18y ago
Not genetic, but cultural. The latter is fluid, though not as quick to change as you believe. Nevertheless, I think that African ideas, attitudes and cultures are changing for the better and I do have some optimism for the continent's future. Still, I agree that there's not much point in continuing this. We're both arguing from the perspectives obtained from personal observation, so chances are this wouldn't have gone anywhere useful in any case. But thanks for the discussion.
quantumhobbit 18y ago
It's not a genetic disposition to corruption but a tolerance developed through overexposure. When most cops are corrupt there is less outrage over one corrupt cop because that is normal. People learn to accept what is all around them. Part of culture is what is tolerated and what isn't. It's a Catch-22. The same thing can happen in the United States. Louisiana has a history of corruption mostly dating back to Huey Long but present before his term as governor (I grew up in Louisiana). Most voters accept it. It is assumed in every election that all the candidates are crooks. William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 dollars in bribes in his freezer, will continue to be reelected partly because voters don't expect better from other politicians. Alaska is different. It is a younger state with a less entrenched culture of corruption. Ted Stevens who was far more popular than William Jefferson lost a close race due to his convictions on corruption charges.
- netcan 18y ago
  There's is also a feedback effect when it becomes so entrenched that everyone has participated in it. It's one thing to pay a bribe to a cop to avoid trouble. It's another to seek out someone to put a stamp on something so that you do ABC. When corruption is the system, most people reach that point. A large number of (basically decent) people also reach the point where they are actually accepting black money. That would definitely accelorate tolerance.
jmatt 18y ago
trying to prove someone on the internet wrong is something I'd rather not spend my time on. obligatory link... http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
zmimon 18y ago
> If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I disagree completely What else do you call it when a large proportion of a society broadly engage in and accept a practice? I think it's fine if you don't like calling it a "cultural disposition", but you have to call it something. For some reason this practice is entrenched there (or do you disagree with even that?) and it's a major obstacle to progress in eliminating poverty. If we can't even refer to it using some terms to describe it, how can we deal with it?
- netcan 18y ago
  I think we are hitting semantics here. Seems obvious to me that 'a genetic or cultural disposition' that is being opposed in the comment you quote is referring to an 'a priori' disposition: a deeply engrained cultural element that isn't going to be changed by a few generations of poverty, prosperity or political instability. I think the reason it is being so vehemently opposed (by what seems like a large minority here) should be obvious. It's fairly obvious that cultural elements are involved. The fact that people take & give bribes is a display of culture. But people from places where corruption is less rampant & the conditions for culture are less then ideal, are dismissing this as a genetic disposition or cultural equivalent of 'genetic disposition'. That's a smug sort of a conclusion to come to. Sure there are cultures that would be more resistant to corruption. But that is probably dwarfed relatively to other factors. Certain colonial practices for example, layed foundations for corruption - especially in certain parts of Africa. There is no reason to assume that Americans would be more resistant to corruption simply because it is now a functioning country.
  - redrobot5050 18y ago
    Actually, the fact that we have a layered government (local, state, and federal) makes its more resistant to corruption. During the vietnam war, a federal investigation of New York's Drug Enforcement Squad eventually landed 2/3rds of the force in front of a grand jury. Corruption at the local level? Make it a state case. Corruption at the state level? Make it a federal case. Corruption at the federal level? this is where it gets tricky. Ideally another "branch" of government is supposed to serve as a check or balance against the others, this is not always the case.

Maktab 18y ago

Not genetic, but cultural. The latter is fluid, though not as quick to change as you believe. Nevertheless, I think that African ideas, attitudes and cultures are changing for the better and I do have some optimism for the continent's future. Still, I agree that there's not much point in continuing this. We're both arguing from the perspectives obtained from personal observation, so chances are this wouldn't have gone anywhere useful in any case. But thanks for the discussion.

quantumhobbit 18y ago

It's not a genetic disposition to corruption but a tolerance developed through overexposure. When most cops are corrupt there is less outrage over one corrupt cop because that is normal. People learn to accept what is all around them. Part of culture is what is tolerated and what isn't. It's a Catch-22. The same thing can happen in the United States. Louisiana has a history of corruption mostly dating back to Huey Long but present before his term as governor (I grew up in Louisiana). Most voters accept it. It is assumed in every election that all the candidates are crooks. William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 dollars in bribes in his freezer, will continue to be reelected partly because voters don't expect better from other politicians. Alaska is different. It is a younger state with a less entrenched culture of corruption. Ted Stevens who was far more popular than William Jefferson lost a close race due to his convictions on corruption charges.

netcan 18y ago
There's is also a feedback effect when it becomes so entrenched that everyone has participated in it. It's one thing to pay a bribe to a cop to avoid trouble. It's another to seek out someone to put a stamp on something so that you do ABC. When corruption is the system, most people reach that point. A large number of (basically decent) people also reach the point where they are actually accepting black money. That would definitely accelorate tolerance.

jmatt 18y ago

trying to prove someone on the internet wrong is something I'd rather not spend my time on. obligatory link... http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/

zmimon 18y ago

> If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I disagree completely What else do you call it when a large proportion of a society broadly engage in and accept a practice? I think it's fine if you don't like calling it a "cultural disposition", but you have to call it something. For some reason this practice is entrenched there (or do you disagree with even that?) and it's a major obstacle to progress in eliminating poverty. If we can't even refer to it using some terms to describe it, how can we deal with it?

netcan 18y ago
I think we are hitting semantics here. Seems obvious to me that 'a genetic or cultural disposition' that is being opposed in the comment you quote is referring to an 'a priori' disposition: a deeply engrained cultural element that isn't going to be changed by a few generations of poverty, prosperity or political instability. I think the reason it is being so vehemently opposed (by what seems like a large minority here) should be obvious. It's fairly obvious that cultural elements are involved. The fact that people take & give bribes is a display of culture. But people from places where corruption is less rampant & the conditions for culture are less then ideal, are dismissing this as a genetic disposition or cultural equivalent of 'genetic disposition'. That's a smug sort of a conclusion to come to. Sure there are cultures that would be more resistant to corruption. But that is probably dwarfed relatively to other factors. Certain colonial practices for example, layed foundations for corruption - especially in certain parts of Africa. There is no reason to assume that Americans would be more resistant to corruption simply because it is now a functioning country.
- redrobot5050 18y ago
  Actually, the fact that we have a layered government (local, state, and federal) makes its more resistant to corruption. During the vietnam war, a federal investigation of New York's Drug Enforcement Squad eventually landed 2/3rds of the force in front of a grand jury. Corruption at the local level? Make it a state case. Corruption at the state level? Make it a federal case. Corruption at the federal level? this is where it gets tricky. Ideally another "branch" of government is supposed to serve as a check or balance against the others, this is not always the case.