3 ms·

> 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 disa

by 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.

by zmimon 18y ago

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.