Let's see...we literally rape, pillage and colonize the continent for centuries. Then, 50 or so years ago we give them "independence" but ensure we have "friendly" leaders who we still can do business with and who will be on our side during the Cold War. Then, we give them "aid" under terms that would make old school loan sharks, and their modern cousins, the credit card companies, blush with embarrassment.

The bribes...err, I mean...."aid" is then given to our friends in government who pocket some of the bribes...oops, sorry again...pocket some of the aid and earmark the rest for "development projects", which, in an amazing coincidence, are usually run and/or owned by foreign compaines. Then, after a few cycles of this, we declare the whole thing a disaster and give the Africans an updated "White Man's Burden" patronizing lecture that their "inherent character flaws" are solely to blame for the mess. Nice work....

As an aside, I always get a kick out of upright people who bemoan African superstition while ignoring that the majority of Christian Westerners apparently have no problem believing that a female virgin gave birth to the Son of God. Go figure...

"Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

From an 12/31/04 interview with Democracy Now:

JOHN PERKINS: Well, really, over the past 30 to 40 years, we economic hit men have created the largest global empire in the history of the world. And we do this, typically -- well, there are many ways to do it, but a typical one is that we identify a third-world country that has resources, which we covet. And often these days that's oil, or might be the canal in the case of Panama. In any case, we go to that third-world country and we arrange a huge loan from the international lending community; usually the World Bank leads that process. So, let's say we give this third-world country a loan of $1 billion. One of the conditions of that loan is that the majority of it, roughly 90%, comes back to the United States to one of our big corporations, the ones we've all heard of recently, the Bechtels, the Halliburtons. And those corporations build in this third-world country large power plants, highways, ports, or industrial parks -- big infrastructure projects that basically serve the very rich in those countries. The poor people in those countries and the middle class suffer; they don't benefit from these loans, they don't benefit from the projects. In fact, often their social services have to be severely curtailed in the process of paying off the debt. Now what also happens is that this third-world country then is saddled with a huge debt that it can't possibly repay. For example, today, Ecuador. Ecuador's foreign debt, as a result of the economic hit man, is equal to roughly 50% of its national budget. It cannot possibly repay this debt, as is the case with so many third-world countries. So, now we go back to those countries and say, look, you borrowed all this money from us, and you owe us this money, you can't repay your debts, so give our oil companies your oil at very cheap costs. And in the case of many of these countries, Ecuador is a good example here, that means destroying their rain forests and destroying their indigenous cultures. That's what we're doing today around the world, and we've been doing it -- it began shortly after the end of World War II. It has been building up over time until today where it's really reached mammoth proportions where we control most of the resources of the world."

I know we're talking about Africa but the script is the same. Sure the 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation local African despot who's skimming off the top is a problem, but hey, that's the price of doing business, eh?

Instead, we get World Bank officials and apologists writing books about good intentions and the cycle of bad African governments and the very misleading idea that the local Big Man is taking all the loot from long suffering poor Africans who, of course, are sympathetic to the well intentioned World Bank honcho. Also, I love the "$500 billions dollars since...." line.

Anyway, first of all, the vast majority of "aid" is actually loans with very specific provisions in them on how they are to be used and how they are to be payed back. I don't know where this stubborn idea comes from that "we" just give them money and the bad Big Man steals it and that's that. What actually happens is a very established pattern that's not even remotely unique to Africa (check Iraq for the upcoming latest version). The WB, IMF etc. gives them loans, and yes, the local bad Big Man often takes his cut, the rest (usu. the majority) goes for large development projects that are run by foreign companies. The country is then is strapped with massive debt they can't pay back and, after a short while, they basically get foreclosed on and are usually required to sell public national assets to guess who - Foreign creditors and developers. Sometimes they call this, as they did recently, "clean slate debt cancellation". Graciously, they are then offered a new round of "emergency aid" loans that sink them deeper into debt and continue the cycle.

Sigh, if only they were to "take responsibility" for their governments then all would be well because we all know that's the main issue/problem.

Okay, though your post wasn't that clear to me. Seemed a bit rushed. BUT, the Anne Coulter stuff was over the top. You are the other using the spectre of "Anne Coulterism" as a shield against legitimate criticism of well established WB practices. Sure, the WB does some good, but whether they are well intentioned is a matter of opinion and almost seems irrelevant.