http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/...918-story.html

I think it's important to take into account the (very recent) colonial history of this region, where certain groups have been given power by the colonial nations when they left with little to no regard for the traditional structures of the culture. Fabricated diseases have been used in the past to gain control over an area, it makes sense that the populations there would be wary. It's still awful that people who are trying to help have been killed BUT context is vital to understanding world issues.

As far as the cause: we're pretty sure that ebola was contracted by humans eating infected bushmeat, yes. But the tone of your post seems a little off so I'll clarify that it happens here too--humans can contract bovine encephalitis (mad cow disease) from consuming infected cattle.

There is a similar response though even directed towards health workers that live and work in the affected areas, so this attitude is not reserved just for "white people".
I find it difficult to be as sympathetic for these people getting sick after they reject all measures meant to protect them (and kill health care workers, journalists, etc in cold blood), similar to how I find it difficult to be sympathetic towards people who are anti-vaccine who then find themselves or their families hospitalized due to vaccine-preventable diseases, or people who insist on using "natural" treatments despite the availability of much better alternatives, and then have themselves or a family member die from a totally treatable disease.

It's really awful that white colonialization has basically decimated many of these beautiful countries, and I suppose one could argue that the former colonial powers should share some blame if Ebola spreads off the African continent, and they do share some blame for the current outbreak. It is also true, I think, that the vast majority of problems in many African nations today can be traced back to colonialism. At least the Guinean people (as well as the people in other affected countries) have a very good reason to be skeptical (unlike the other two cases I mentioned above), but - as is always the case - willful ignorance will be their downfall. It never works out well when fear triumphs over common sense.

Do you think Ebola will not exist if we didn't colonize Africa?

Originally Posted by topkek

Do you think Ebola will not exist if we didn't colonize Africa?

No I don't think that. I said the colonial powers bear some responsibility for the current outbreak, not that Ebola wouldn't exist if Africa hadn't been colonized.

Originally Posted by starfish

No I don't think that. I said the colonial powers bear some responsibility for the current outbreak, not that Ebola wouldn't exist if Africa hadn't been colonized.

Please explain how the colonial powers caused the Ebola outbreak (in whole or in part/ directly or indirectly), especially the part where they should be held responsible.

PS: I think the outbreak would be worse if we didn't built infrastructure in Africa.

The disease would still exist, but without the fear/mistrust of government, "white" countries (previous colonial powers) and corruption (which is largely a result of colonialism), it would not have spread to the extent that it has, because people would be more trusting and accepting of measures put in place to contain the outbreak and protect them. Right now, health care workers and governments are fighting Ebola and fighting the people affected (though in different ways obviously). Any type of outbreak could be contained much faster, and be much less of a problem, if you're not also fighting the people affected.

Also, poor living conditions contributed to the outbreak, and those poor living conditions tend to be the result of corruption of government officials and/or war, which in turn tend to be caused by the actions of previous colonial powers.

Obviously it's not entirely their fault, and I never said it was, but the current outbreak likely would not have reached this scale and would have been contained much faster if colonial powers hadn't messed up these countries so much.

Originally Posted by starfish

The disease would still exist, but without the fear/mistrust of government, "white" countries (previous colonial powers) and corruption (which is largely a result of colonialism)

I'd say it is because of the tribalism nature of Africa.

What do you mean by that? (By the term "tribalism nature" and how it contributes to the outbreak)

i love how africans blame everything to other people but not themselves

Originally Posted by Jesse.C

i love how africans blame everything to other people but not themselves

Could you not say the same about any country though?

There are some gross generalizations and misrepresentations in this thread. I'd just like to remind you all that Africa is a continent. it's made up of over 54 different countries. At the moment the outbreak is spreading almost exclusively in specific countries in west Africa. Not all nations (or people) are handling the outbreak in the same way. Please refrain from making vague and controversial comments unless you somehow have a phd level knowledge of the cultural, societal and historical makeup of the continent. :/


but then who am I kidding, there are certain people in this forum who just thrive on making controversial threads to stir up attention