Recent content by Mumbai Son

Yes, but what is your point? Can you elaborate your point?

South Africa was a 1st world country during Apartheid but not now. The living standards were better during apartheid. South African military was strong. Crime was low, corruption was almost non-existent. I think if you weigh pros and cons of apartheid you may be surprised with the results.

Your graduates are useless because many have poor work ethic and don't have critical thinking skills. In other countries university students work and go to school and this teaches them work ethic. Also schools in East Africa emphasize rot memorization style of learning instead of critical...

1500 EUR per month is nothing. Indians make twice that or even more per month in East Africa. We need to teach these Europeans about how to make money in East Africa. There is plenty of money to go around.

Why is it a problem for me to point out that Indians are successful? I am not saying all Indians are successful but I am saying many Indians are successful. So what's the big deal?

You are dreaming my friend. Indians have been in Tanzania before Nyerere, during Nyerere, and after Nyerere. Only mad man Idi Amin managed to remove large number of Indians but guess what? Museveni begged us to come back because the Ugandan economy was destroyed after we left. We will always be...

East Africa did not make us successful, we made ourselves successful. Your argument is weak simply because Indians are successful everywhere not just in East Africa. Indians are successful in UK, Canada, US, even in India whose economy will soon surpass UK and France.

So what? Just because majority of Indians live in rented government houses (which I doubt), it does not necessarily mean most modern buildings are not owned by Indians. There is an error in your logic.

Without Indians all the countries in East Africa would be full of slums. Modern buildings in Dar, Nairobi or Kampala are owned by Indians. So there is no point in arguing about which country has more slums.