The West has been supporting the insanely-corrupt governments in Africa for a very long time.

The governments of first world countries exploit the people and encourage corruption every chance they get, because it's profitable for their corporations, and it keeps the people of Africa as slaves to the first word countries.

The UN watches, and does nothing.

I am in West Africa now. I have been to 15 countries here in the last 14 months. My eyes are open.

As an African let me rephrase that for you. Africans do not think twice about turning on their bretheren when offered huge sums of money. Liberation heroes turn into tyrants once they taste the good life.

I am by no means condoning what the West is/has done. I however have a problem with my own people taking the lions share of any profits.

It's not Africans, it's just people. Westerners sell each other out to foreigners too. Just look at the history of Latin America. There are just far fewer foreigners with the relative wealth to buy off whole governments in MDCs. And in many cases our institutions developed to resist corruption before international finance made it so incredibly easy to accomplish.

The intentional abuses of colonization were vile, but the neglectful exploitation of decolonization has hardly been better.

I replied to another post below. People are just people, agreed. Impact of corruption on a developing nation is felt much more by the people. This is why Africans will risk their lives on rickety boats to get to Europe but Europeans haven't got to that stage yet.

If that's any consolation, I don't think that's only for Africans. You can see the same thing happening in Europe, the Americas and in Asia. Power corrupts. That's why our history is filled with stories about the powerful oppressing the weak, and our litterature is replete with upper-middle class characters struggling with the allure of power, resisting or giving in to the dehumanization aspects that occur all too easily.

I agree. People are just people.

I think we just at a different development stage. The impact of corruption in Africa is more acute. The West have been building hospitals and schools for centuries. We were late to the party. Corruption means we don't have essentials, hospitals, running water, schools. People end up dying of diseases that have cures because there is no medicine.

IMO I don't think its as simple as just building infrastructure, even though that's a significant part of it. One of the best things about Western society is that there is a certain amount of trust among the people, even strangers that seems to be very important to get things done. i.e. if I pay a contractor to fix my house, its very likely they will (if the problem is well known etc.). Even if the trust is misplaced, there is a good judicial system to resort to in egregious cases which keeps (most) bad behaviors/people in check. Cooperation among strangers is essential to the advancement of any society.

In most non-Western countries, this level of trust or belief/existence of the judicial system is absent. Which increases the risk exponentially of investing, working etc.

Now of course, you do need a good education system to provide lawyers/judges and people of every skill level to man these institutions and keep them from corruption. So it does seem like a somewhat cyclical problem.

>and it keeps the people of Africa as slaves to the first word countries.

There are absolutely people who are out to exploit the poor and uneducated, but you make it sound as if someone wants to enslave for the purpose of enslaving.

> but you make it sound as if someone wants to enslave for the purpose of enslaving.

I have no doubt in my mind that some people do want this.

LSE has a little form in this area…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics_Gad...

According to her, she started selling eggs and buying cotton http://www.makaangola.org/2016/05/isabel-dos-santos-africas-... (sarcasm here)

Buying/selling eggs and cotton? Is she following the M&M Enterprises business model?

https://norighttobelieve.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/everybody-...

The most scary part is that she isn't trying to be a smart ass, she really believe what she is saying.

Seems on pair with the behind-kissing of major Oil producers including one (or many) that finances terror

On her Instagram account (linked from the NYTimes article) there's this pic: https://www.instagram.com/p/BWnuoDFlGC1/?taken-by=isabel_dos...

What does she use to get that weird, almost photoshopped like effect?

The strong front lighting reduces shadows, for example on her face, that normally provide visual clues about the depth of her features (e.g. how large her nose is) this tends to flatten a persons features to a degree as pointed out by rangibaby.

The overall focus in strongly divided into foreground features and very blurred background features. I haven't played around with the ability of the iPhone 7+ to do this blurring algorithmically, but it is very commonly done with SRL cameras by choosing a very shallow depth of field. This is done by using a large aperture, say f2 or f2.8. This wider open lens allows more of the outer, more curved, part of the lens to collect and focus light onto the image, and due to the geometry of the optics this makes the range of the scene that remains in sharp focus much shallower. (See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field .) Notice particularly, the excellent bokeh formed by the blurred lights in the background. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh)

Finally, a flash combined with a wide open lens can overpower the exposure, a problem for film's limited range of sensitivity (film speed). Cameras can compensate for this by using insanely short exposures, like 1/8000 second, and/or adjusting the exposure sensitivity for a few individual shots (film cameras require changing film rolls to change sensitivity, but today's digital cameras can automatically change the sensitivity on a per shot basis). To me, the picture has a frozen, surreal aspect that can come from a high shutter speed.

All of these effects, which can be done with the appropriate camera settings, can also be simulated with enough Photoshop work. This particular photo could have just been produced serendipitously, especially in this age of unlimited snaps from cell phones that never run out of film, but it looks more professional to me. Consider the careful edge lighting that separates the hair from the background. (See https://www.slrlounge.com/5-ways-to-separate-your-subject-fr... )

I'm not seeing the effect you mentioned. She is lit with a flash, which makes her look flat, but other than that I'm not seeing anything.

I noticed this by accident on my iPhone 7+. If you take a picture of a figure with strong back lighting, then use the editing functions to bring up the shadows, it will look like this.

Where is the problem? Most young entrepreneurs I met had, at least, better of parents, if not rich.

The idea of startups is to fail fast, so if you can fail on your parents money till you're 21 that could also counts as an apprenticeship...

Friend of mine hand dentist parents. Did a few motion picture companies till 21, made almost no money with them and lived with his parents. Later he jumped on the VR bandwagon with 4 years of CEO expertise and got investors like nobodies business

She is the richest women in Africa on account of comically massive corruption, nepotism, being the daughter of a "democratically elected president" who has been in the job for 38 years, all the while the people of Angola live in absolutely abject poverty. Seriously, Luanda is almost the definition of late stage capitalism: one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in as a uber-rich, and a population so miserably destitute I don't even... You gotta be really in too deep if this is just a ok with you.

you need to understand that most, really most of the riches we've got today are rich due to crimes to society.

in the US you have a lot of "self-made" people who wouldn't make it anywhere if the US didn't keep its imperialism, which generally kills more people than that regime, but it's ok right as you are the benefitor of something which happened somewhat far away from you, correct? not really.

becoming an entrepreneur is something only some people can afford to.

it's just life.

"Society is unequal. It's just life" said the slave to the master, said the serf to the lord, said the subject to the sovereign. No its just just bloody life, it's a system of society which can be improved upon or even replaced (as indeed such systems have evolved and changed in the past).

What an appallingly paralysing way to view things.

That went downhill fast. I'm assuming here that you mean income inequality. Just bear in mind that equalizing politics has been one of the greatest sources of tyranny in history (think Animal Farm; see Frankfurt's "On Equality" for some discussion around equality qua equality and the issues around it). The problem isn't inequality per se, but things like poverty or secondary issues like the power that money often buys. To say that "the system" is the ultimate source of our evils is a silly notion that fails to pin the blame on individuals. "Systems" (or I'd say, prevailing social realities) can make bad behaviors appealing, but morally upright people do not take advantage of such opportunities. Certainly, some social orders are better than others, and legal systems that punish and reward appropriately is very important, but thinking that a properly constructed "system" will eliminate all concerned evils by removing inequality is terrifying madness. Focus on the elimination of poverty instead. Inequality per se is irrelevant.

In Animal Farm, the source of tyranny was not equality, on the contrary; it was the failure of the masses to sustain the idea and to prevent the leaders from violating it. Orwell was still a believer in socialist equality, just not in the Bolsheviks or Stalinism.

See Revolution on Animal Farm: Orwell's Neglected Commentary.

You're oversimplifying things to an absurd level. A lot of American entrepreneurial wealth is made from goods & services made and sold in the US, so I don't see how American Foreign policy has any effect on it.

Sure the established corporations do make a ton of money from international trade (Oil, Manufacturing, Electronics etc.).

Anyone can be an entrepreneur. It's having an idea that can be acted upon that should provide a positive return (in terms of comparable and calculable inputs and outputs). In the capitalist production order, entrepreneurs need capital to create the conditions necessary to act on the plan. Most people don't have ideas that can be acted upon with enough potential return to justify seeking capital investment as a unique enterprise.

Is there a wonderful country somewhere we should emulate instead? You must have somewhere in mind.

> you are the benefitor

He has to pay the taxes and has his social programs gutted to finance imperialist policies that primarily benefit the connected ultra rich, who might let him have a few crumbs of their wealth.

Some benefit.

Democratically elected with 99.6% of the vote, according to a picture in the article. So either a massive campaign of coercion, or redolent of a quote about whichever of North Korean Kims it was who was reported to have got 18 holes in one the first time he played golf: "the more outrageous the lie, the greater the display of power".