North Africa

Originally posted by no1marauder
How else can the statement:

KN: [b]Increased wealth and communication makes it much harder for dictators to keep their populations under control.

(Emphasis supplied)


be interpreted reasonably? That others didn't pay close attention to it proves only that they are more careless than I am.[/b]

It can be interpreted as: a dissatisfied and wealthy population is harder to keep under control than a dissatisfied and poor population.

Originally posted by Barts
It can be interpreted as: a dissatisfied and wealthy population is harder to keep under control than a dissatisfied and poor population.

Perhaps you'd give some historical examples of populations that were "dissatisfied" AND "wealthy". And were so "dissatisfied" despite their "wealth" that they overthrew a dictator.

Point being that "dissatisfied" and "wealthy/poor" are hardly independent variables.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
no1's too busy putting on his red cap, pantaloons and clogs to listen.

I know, I'll put my neck out there to draw some heat off KN.

Hey Marauder, all the chaos is due to a masterminded plot by unionized Islamic fundamentalists motivated by no other than the modern day progressives that constantly inspire them to fight off Zionist sympathizing authoritarian rule. There motto is, "Today Affrica, tomorrow the world!!"

There, that should do it. In fact, I think I hear his synapses firing in a rage as we speak!! 😀

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No doubt the role of social media is exaggerated, although one story goes that a Wikileaks cable detailing said corruption helped stoke the fires. That story rapidly did the rounds via the electronic media (which includes mobile phones. "Looters sick of the family's nepotism filmed themselves on mobile phones destroying the family's expensive cars at el Bouzaiene, and Regueb, and lawyers and journalists in Monastir, Sfax, and Tunis.

BDN: As to who took part, the man who set fire to himself was an unemployed student.

Actually not; he was self-employed as a street vendor selling fruits and vegetables. And Western news reports are incorrect:

He stayed in high school long enough to sit his baccalaureate exam, but did not graduate. (He never attended university, contrary to what many news organisations have reported). .................................

"What really gave fire to the revolution was that Mohamed was a very well-known and popular man. He would give free fruit and vegetables to very poor families," Jaafer said.[Facebook, my ass- no1]



http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201111684242518839.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you'd give some historical examples of populations that were "dissatisfied" AND "wealthy". And were so "dissatisfied" despite their "wealth" that they overthrew a dictator.

Point being that "dissatisfied" and "wealthy/poor" are hardly independent variables.

So, is that an admission that there is another way to interpret that post ? Of course, you seem to disagree with the other interpretation as well, but before we get into that I'd like to clear up the first question first.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How else can the statement:

KN: [b]Increased wealth and communication makes it much harder for dictators to keep their populations under control.

(Emphasis supplied)


be interpreted reasonably? That others didn't pay close attention to it proves only that they are more careless than I am.[/b]

You can increase the wealth of a population without removing it from poverty. A population that is reduced to starvation is less likely to organise a successful revolution than one that is not. Communication is obviously quite important and the wealthier the population, the more of it there is going to be. The population doesn't have to be particularly wealthy to have good communication services either -- mobile phones are enough. The mobile phone market in Africa is expanding rapidly at the moment -- very few people own computers, but mobile phones are ubiquitous.

Mr Mubarak seems to be taking communication very seriously at the moment, having switched off the Internet. He seems to be inciting revolution ...

Originally posted by no1marauder
BDN: As to who took part, the man who set fire to himself was an unemployed student.

Actually not; he was self-employed as a street vendor selling fruits and vegetables. And Western news reports are incorrect:

He stayed in high school long enough to sit his baccalaureate exam, but did not graduate. (He never attended university, contra ...[text shortened]... ass- no1]



http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201111684242518839.html

Very well:

As to who took part, Mohamed Bouazizi, the man who set fire to himself, was a street vendor; days after that attempt, "students, teachers, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists, trade unionists, and opposition politicians took to the streets in several cities, including Tunis, to condemn the government's economic policies, its repression of all critics, and a mafia-style corruption that enriches members of the president's family." http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/02/tunisia_s_protest_wave_where_it_comes_from_and_what_it_means_for_ben_ali

What's the difference?

Unemployed students are legion in Tunisia and many identified with Bouazizi, as the following makes clear.

"On Thursday, Jaber Hajlawi, an unemployed 22-year-old lawyer and one of Bouazizi's neighbors, leaned against the graffitied wall as he lit a cigarette. "We were silent before but Mohammed showed us that we must react," he says. Clad in a short black leather jacket and blue jeans with gelled black hair, he looks the part of a rebel, with a cause. "My brother has a Ph.D.; he works in a supermarket. The problem is that qualifications mean nothing. It's all about who you know," he says. "Now, we expect things to change. I want my freedom and my rights. I want to work. I want a job."
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7960215-bouazizi-the-man-who-set-himself-and-tunisia-on-fire

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you'd give some historical examples of populations that were "dissatisfied" AND "wealthy". And were so "dissatisfied" despite their "wealth" that they overthrew a dictator.

Point being that "dissatisfied" and "wealthy/poor" are hardly independent variables.

"Increased wealth" does not imply "wealthy", it implies "more wealth than in a previous situation". The fact that life expectancy in Tunisia is 74 years is clearly an indication that wealth has increased compared to e.g. 40 years ago.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I misread nothing; KN's post said that rising wealth was a factor in the dissatisfaction with dictatorship. This is nonsensical (as he subsequently conceded).

Of course, modern communication means spread news faster; who's arguing with that? But the implied idea that the tiny proportion of people in Tunisia with Facebook accounts were the ...[text shortened]... es and organizers of the uprising and that it wouldn't have happened without them is rubbish.

So are you denying that Tunisia has become steadily wealthier over the past few decades, as well as making progress in other indicators of development? If so, you're overlooking UN statistics, at least:

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/TUN.html

"Each year since 1990 the Human Development Report has published the Human Development Index (HDI) which was introduced as an alternative to conventional measures of national development, such as level of income and the rate of economic growth. The HDI represents a push for a broader definition of well-being and provides a composite measure of three basic dimensions of human development: health, education and income. Between 1980 and 2010 Tunisia's HDI rose by 1.5% annually from 0.436 to 0.683 today, which gives the country a rank of 81 out of 169 countries with comparable data. The HDI of Arab States as a region increased from 0.398 in 1980 to 0.590 today, placing Tunisia above the regional average."

Social networks help to inform others of planned protests, but the real threat to dictators in that part of the world is the instant communication during the protests via the social networks. I don't think the influence of social networks has been exaggerated at all.
The source is simple, people are sick of repressive dictators. Had the USA government not supported Hosni Mubarak for so long, we would not have so many terrorists coming out of Egypt. If my government did not support the kingdom of Saudi Arabia we would have less American hating terrorists from there too.

People are sick of repressive dictators and those that support them.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
So are you denying that Tunisia has become steadily wealthier over the past few decades, as well as making progress in other indicators of development? If so, you're overlooking UN statistics, at least:

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/TUN.html

"Each year since 1990 the Human Development Report has published the Human Development Index ...[text shortened]... on increased from 0.398 in 1980 to 0.590 today, placing Tunisia above the regional average."

Check a calendar; the uprising was this year, not in 1990 or 1991 etc. etc. etc. Is the average person in Tunisia getting wealthier NOW?

There are roughly 3 mobile phones per every 4 persons in Tunisia (this includes children and the elderly):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_mob_cel_percap-telephones-mobile-cellular-per-capita#definition

And roughly 17% are internet users:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_use_percap-internet-users-per-capita

Originally posted by no1marauder
Check a calendar; the uprising was this year, not in 1990 or 1991 etc. etc. etc. Is the average person in Tunisia getting wealthier NOW?

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2010/car091010a.htm

"In its annual health check of Tunisia’s economy, the IMF said that growth is expected to reach 3.8 percent in 2010, after slowing to 3 percent in 2009 as the global downturn took its toll. But unemployment has begun to rise, after having fallen to 12.4 percent in 2007, and at 13.3 percent, remains relatively high, particularly among the educated youth."

So in other words, Tunisia is getting wealthier, but the tide is not raising all boats. "The average person" in Tunisia has a job; but there are enough people who don't to create a significant level of discontent. Moreover, if one in seven adults are unemployed, that probably means that the majority of Tunisians have friends and family who are unemployed. And this situation is not class-specific; it unites the educated and uneducated alike.

However, the "average person" is a convenient abstraction. A popular revolt may well be based in the fact that various small groups together achieve a critical mass which is able to convince and mobilise a majority of the population - and this is what I think has happened here. The protests seem to have united various segments of society:

1) The poor, struggling to make ends meet.
2) The educated (a larger sector of society in Tunisia than in most Arab nations), finding that they can't depend on securing the jobs for which they have been trained.
3) Islamists opposed to secular rulers (probably a smaller sector of society in Tunisia than in most Arab nations) and seeking a greater role for religion in politics.
4) Liberals opposed to authoritarian rulers and seeking greater freedoms.

I've no idea what the relative strength of these groups is (and of course they overlap), but the scope, breadth and success of the protests suggest to me that they combine to form a majority.

So how come North Korea's malnourished, brainwashed, impoverished population is starting to show signs of resistance?