|
On November 22 2012 23:38 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. Its childish to think - "hey, big deal that we colonised this country, used its natural resources, enslaved the people, suppressed all cultural and moral values of the locals, enforce our way of life and our social norms, even exterminated 2/3 of the population (which is the case in Congo).But we are out of this continent for more than 50 years, its their problem now, we dont have to be blamed anymore"
So they are lesser creatures?
Not to be held responsible for their own actions, or their own fate, as you would any westerner.
The greatest injustice is telling these people that they aren't responsible for their own lives, telling them that they are simple automatons, only reacting to what the white man does.
Black people are as human as the rest of us, and with that comes the burden of being responsible for your own life.
I'm not excused from taking charge of my own life because Germans took over my country less than a 100 years ago.
Treat all people as equals, don't give people a free pass on their actions because they happen to be black. The racism of lowered expecations.
|
On November 23 2012 00:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 00:00 mdb wrote:On November 22 2012 23:44 Simberto wrote:On November 22 2012 23:30 sekritzzz wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. White man's burden? Its not about being white, its about ethnically cleansing several races off the planet. I could careless about their actual race but the fucked up things Europe and their proxies(Euro-Americans, Euro-Latin Americans, Euro-Australians, etc) did throughout the 400-600 years is by far the worst crimes in human history. A large portion of what Africa is going through is because of European colonialism. The black race was even well on the way of being wiped out by Europeans, just like they did to the Natives of North America, Australia, and partially South America. The only thing which saved black people of Africa is ironically Diseases such as malaria which the black race could survive but white people would be killed by it due to different immune systems. Europeans couldn't "take" over Africa like they did with both Americas and Australia, so they settled for colonizing them through divide and conquer tactics. Noone argues against that. The point being made is that you can not blame everything that is happening today on that, forever. Yes, Africa got fucked up pretty badly by colonisation. Noone argues against that. But you can't blame everything that happens today on things that happened long ago. Maybe you can blame it on stuff that happens today and exploits the past. For example, take europe after WW2. That was a mess. Everything bombed to pieces, people hating each other, etc... Now compare that to europe today. The point being is that just because something was a mess 50 years ago does not mean that it needs to stay a mess forever. Of course there are no simple solutions to this. But it should be possible for people to stop having civil wars that slaughter millions of people every 5 years. You really can't blame that on something that happened hundred years ago. Also, i see no reason to feel guilty about colonisation. I also don't feel guilty about WW2. In general, i don't feel guilty for stuff that happened when my parents were not even born yet. That stuff is not my responsibility. I dont think that anyone wants people from Germany, Belgium, UK etc to feel any guilt or burden. It makes no sense. But my personal opinion is that these countries have won billions and billions exploiting African nations and should do something to stop the madness happening in Africa. I dont know exactly what, but something can be done if the former colonial powers have the will. There should be responsibility. I think this is the normal, human position on this matter. You want to invade a dozen African countries with millions of soldiers and stay there for 20 years? No other kind of outside intervention is going to "stop the madness" in Africa. Tribalism is back. The Europeans suppressed it, and the instant they left it came back. Throwing money at Africa, when it will just be stolen by men with guns who are not open to any methods of persuasion except force, isn't going to solve the problem.
As Kwark said the only thing that could stop the "madness" is a long term occupation that is similar to colonizing or Imperialism. Unfourtanately everyone would get all hoopty doo about it and get all anti-imperialist.
|
Colonialism, the big stick the world tries to hit Europeans with whenever this kind of shit happens, simple fact is the only reason we did so was military might, whenever any country has shown this attribute since the 1900's, when it became more practical to rule with political and financial pressure then directly conquer, they have started conquering their asses off, from Africans to Asians to Americans to Europeans.
If Europe hadn't conquered Africa, eventually Asia would have (and for all intents and purposes is right now), hell, given enough time South America would have invaded the place, the only thing that stopped them before was distance, a problem the Europeans where the first to solve, humans, given the opportunity and a decent incentive, will conquer, anyone with even a basic understanding of history will know this.
The reason Europeans where even able to is just a matter of random chance, since the dawn of recorded history, military superiority has switched back and forth between, the Middle East, Asia and Europe, the only regions that where able to effectively share technological advancement due to the rather large west-east axis, the axis of efficient travel due to consistent climates, and although not as abundant in natural resources as Africa, they where often far easier to access and in case of lack of one necessary component, there where usually enough countries around that where rich enough to support a differentiated workforce (which is usually the point when a warlord becomes a king and starts bothering with diplomacy, a point most of sub-Sahara Africa never managed to reach) and allowed trading.
Due to a shitton of fairly random factors, mostly to do with China's isolationism and the Middle Eastern climate changing for the worse at the time, Europeans got lucky and where the only viable powerbase able to properly use the technology of the time, that incidentally led to a lot more conquering capabilities.
Any kind of guilt over random factors is pointless, as is guilt over what your ancestors did, quite frankly, feeling guilty about what your ancestors did usually opens the door to feeling pride over things they did as well, which invariably leads to fanatical nationalism, something I think we all can agree is basically a bad thing.
|
On November 23 2012 00:00 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 23:44 Simberto wrote:On November 22 2012 23:30 sekritzzz wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. White man's burden? Its not about being white, its about ethnically cleansing several races off the planet. I could careless about their actual race but the fucked up things Europe and their proxies(Euro-Americans, Euro-Latin Americans, Euro-Australians, etc) did throughout the 400-600 years is by far the worst crimes in human history. A large portion of what Africa is going through is because of European colonialism. The black race was even well on the way of being wiped out by Europeans, just like they did to the Natives of North America, Australia, and partially South America. The only thing which saved black people of Africa is ironically Diseases such as malaria which the black race could survive but white people would be killed by it due to different immune systems. Europeans couldn't "take" over Africa like they did with both Americas and Australia, so they settled for colonizing them through divide and conquer tactics. Noone argues against that. The point being made is that you can not blame everything that is happening today on that, forever. Yes, Africa got fucked up pretty badly by colonisation. Noone argues against that. But you can't blame everything that happens today on things that happened long ago. Maybe you can blame it on stuff that happens today and exploits the past. For example, take europe after WW2. That was a mess. Everything bombed to pieces, people hating each other, etc... Now compare that to europe today. The point being is that just because something was a mess 50 years ago does not mean that it needs to stay a mess forever. Of course there are no simple solutions to this. But it should be possible for people to stop having civil wars that slaughter millions of people every 5 years. You really can't blame that on something that happened hundred years ago. Also, i see no reason to feel guilty about colonisation. I also don't feel guilty about WW2. In general, i don't feel guilty for stuff that happened when my parents were not even born yet. That stuff is not my responsibility. I dont think that anyone wants people from Germany, Belgium, UK etc to feel any guilt or burden. It makes no sense. But my personal opinion is that these countries have won billions and billions exploiting African nations and should do something to stop the madness happening in Africa. I dont know exactly what, but something can be done if the former colonial powers have the will. There should be responsibility. I think this is the normal, human position on this matter.
The main problem is that noone really knows what you can do. Most developed nations spend billions in developement aid already, the problem is that it is pretty hard to get that money to actually help people. If you give them food, you ruin the farmers. If you give it to the local governments to better infrastructure, it gets turned into weapons and money for those government officials. The problem is that it is not easy to solve the problems in africa for outside countries who can't really do a lot there.
You also can't just march in there and stop them from fighting. For one, there is a lot of jungle basically made for guerilla warfare where militant groups can hide for years. Then, you have the problem of deciding which of the groups you want to support. No matter which you choose, they are probably not a really ethical choice, and you will end up as an enemy of the others. Even if you just stop fighting, you still choose the current official ruler there. Also, you got no legal right to just march into other peoples countries if they do something you don't like, that sort of thing is neither very popular nor generally a good idea.
The problem is that so far, nothing that has been tried has helped. And personally, i don't see an easy way for european governments to get africa into a better shape. It is simply not easy. Sure, i agree that it would be better to have africa in a better state, without hunger and constant civil wars. I just don't see how it can be done from the outside.
|
On November 22 2012 20:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 20:42 Slaughter wrote:Oh Africa. If only Europe hadn't fucked you up so much back in the day  Back when the Romans did it they backed up the conquest with ethnic cleansing. Likewise you don't see the descendants of the Native Americans continuing the wars of their fathers, they were defeated and degradated so utterly that they could never recover, you could make the case that Europe insufficiently marginalised the local population. It's a tragedy for the generation that get wiped out but then a new country full of new lives that never would have existed can be born in its place and a baby born of one parentage has no more right to life than one of another. Food for thought.
I've studied the Roman Empire a lot. Only examples I can think of is Julius Caesae exterminating a few Gallic tribes and the razing of Carthage. For the most part, Romans didn't exterminate local populations. They culturally cleansed them in a sense because they forced them to convert wholely to Roman culture.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 23 2012 00:17 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 20:56 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 20:42 Slaughter wrote:Oh Africa. If only Europe hadn't fucked you up so much back in the day Back when the Romans did it they backed up the conquest with ethnic cleansing. Likewise you don't see the descendants of the Native Americans continuing the wars of their fathers, they were defeated and degradated so utterly that they could never recover, you could make the case that Europe insufficiently marginalised the local population. It's a tragedy for the generation that get wiped out but then a new country full of new lives that never would have existed can be born in its place and a baby born of one parentage has no more right to life than one of another. Food for thought. I've studied the Roman Empire a lot. Only examples I can think of is Julius Caesae exterminating a few Gallic tribes and the razing of Carthage. For the most part, Romans didn't exterminate local populations. They culturally cleansed them in a sense because they forced them to convert wholely to Roman culture.
600,000 Jews were killed during or after Bar Kokhba revolt, the Roman response to the third Jewish uprising in half a century. They were thoroughly pacified and didn't rise up again for centuries. It was genocide.
I'm not sure where you studied it to reach the conclusion that the Romans didn't ethnically cleanse when it suited them but my education on the Romans is probably superior to yours.
|
Any concept of guilt or entitlement based on historical events is absurd.
The fact is we're all humans and the one important lesson to learn is that humanity is guilty as fuck.
Humans have treated each other terribly since time began, and as soon as one group becomes powerful and rich enough to invade/exploit another group, they do it. It doesn't matter who you are.
The global situation is gradually changing for the better and has been for quite some time, it would be more productive to focus on what can and should be done in the present rather than try to attribute blame for the current crises on past events or people.
|
There's got to be something about the latitude. The most advanced social democracies are all located in high latitudes while the most unstable countries on any continent are located close to the equator.
|
On November 23 2012 00:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 00:17 MattBarry wrote:On November 22 2012 20:56 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 20:42 Slaughter wrote:Oh Africa. If only Europe hadn't fucked you up so much back in the day Back when the Romans did it they backed up the conquest with ethnic cleansing. Likewise you don't see the descendants of the Native Americans continuing the wars of their fathers, they were defeated and degradated so utterly that they could never recover, you could make the case that Europe insufficiently marginalised the local population. It's a tragedy for the generation that get wiped out but then a new country full of new lives that never would have existed can be born in its place and a baby born of one parentage has no more right to life than one of another. Food for thought. I've studied the Roman Empire a lot. Only examples I can think of is Julius Caesae exterminating a few Gallic tribes and the razing of Carthage. For the most part, Romans didn't exterminate local populations. They culturally cleansed them in a sense because they forced them to convert wholely to Roman culture. 600,000 Jews were killed during or after Bar Kokhba revolt, the Roman response to the third Jewish uprising in half a century. They were thoroughly pacified and didn't rise up again for centuries. It was genocide. I'm not sure where you studied it to reach the conclusion that the Romans didn't ethnically cleanse when it suited them but my education on the Romans is probably superior to yours.
Slaughtering people who revolt and slaughtering races because they're not Roman is different. Romans didn't ethnically cleanse as a policy, they culturally converted people by force.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 23 2012 00:28 Reason wrote:
Any concept of guilt or entitlement based on historical events is absurd.
The fact is we're all humans and the one important lesson to learn is that humanity is guilty as fuck.
Humans have treated each other terribly since time began, and as soon as one group becomes powerful and rich enough to invade/exploit another group, they do it. It doesn't matter who you are.
The global situation is gradually changing for the better and has been for quite some time, it would be more productive to focus on what can and should be done in the present rather than try to attribute blame for the current crises on past events or people.
My posts in this topic relate to current events. You can't possibly believe that they're mining these minerals to make mobile phones for themselves or that they just really like diamonds so they can all marry each other. These end up over here. I blame current crises on current events and people.
|
United States43960 Posts
On November 23 2012 00:30 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 23 2012 00:17 MattBarry wrote:On November 22 2012 20:56 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2012 20:42 Slaughter wrote:Oh Africa. If only Europe hadn't fucked you up so much back in the day Back when the Romans did it they backed up the conquest with ethnic cleansing. Likewise you don't see the descendants of the Native Americans continuing the wars of their fathers, they were defeated and degradated so utterly that they could never recover, you could make the case that Europe insufficiently marginalised the local population. It's a tragedy for the generation that get wiped out but then a new country full of new lives that never would have existed can be born in its place and a baby born of one parentage has no more right to life than one of another. Food for thought. I've studied the Roman Empire a lot. Only examples I can think of is Julius Caesae exterminating a few Gallic tribes and the razing of Carthage. For the most part, Romans didn't exterminate local populations. They culturally cleansed them in a sense because they forced them to convert wholely to Roman culture. 600,000 Jews were killed during or after Bar Kokhba revolt, the Roman response to the third Jewish uprising in half a century. They were thoroughly pacified and didn't rise up again for centuries. It was genocide. I'm not sure where you studied it to reach the conclusion that the Romans didn't ethnically cleanse when it suited them but my education on the Romans is probably superior to yours. Slaughtering people who revolt and slaughtering races because they're not Roman is different. Romans didn't ethnically cleanse as a policy, they culturally converted people by force.
You can't do much cultural conversion after you've already run someone through with a sword. They didn't attempt to Romanise the Jews following the revolt, they levelled the towns and villages and killed them all. Judea ceased to exist. There was no cultural conversion, only eradication. The idea of cultural conversion by force is a nonsense, once you use the force then you only have a corpse left to culturally convert and that doesn't get you very far.
|
On November 23 2012 00:07 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 00:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 23 2012 00:00 mdb wrote:On November 22 2012 23:44 Simberto wrote:On November 22 2012 23:30 sekritzzz wrote:On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.
I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.
Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.
Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.
Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man. White man's burden? Its not about being white, its about ethnically cleansing several races off the planet. I could careless about their actual race but the fucked up things Europe and their proxies(Euro-Americans, Euro-Latin Americans, Euro-Australians, etc) did throughout the 400-600 years is by far the worst crimes in human history. A large portion of what Africa is going through is because of European colonialism. The black race was even well on the way of being wiped out by Europeans, just like they did to the Natives of North America, Australia, and partially South America. The only thing which saved black people of Africa is ironically Diseases such as malaria which the black race could survive but white people would be killed by it due to different immune systems. Europeans couldn't "take" over Africa like they did with both Americas and Australia, so they settled for colonizing them through divide and conquer tactics. Noone argues against that. The point being made is that you can not blame everything that is happening today on that, forever. Yes, Africa got fucked up pretty badly by colonisation. Noone argues against that. But you can't blame everything that happens today on things that happened long ago. Maybe you can blame it on stuff that happens today and exploits the past. For example, take europe after WW2. That was a mess. Everything bombed to pieces, people hating each other, etc... Now compare that to europe today. The point being is that just because something was a mess 50 years ago does not mean that it needs to stay a mess forever. Of course there are no simple solutions to this. But it should be possible for people to stop having civil wars that slaughter millions of people every 5 years. You really can't blame that on something that happened hundred years ago. Also, i see no reason to feel guilty about colonisation. I also don't feel guilty about WW2. In general, i don't feel guilty for stuff that happened when my parents were not even born yet. That stuff is not my responsibility. I dont think that anyone wants people from Germany, Belgium, UK etc to feel any guilt or burden. It makes no sense. But my personal opinion is that these countries have won billions and billions exploiting African nations and should do something to stop the madness happening in Africa. I dont know exactly what, but something can be done if the former colonial powers have the will. There should be responsibility. I think this is the normal, human position on this matter. You want to invade a dozen African countries with millions of soldiers and stay there for 20 years? No other kind of outside intervention is going to "stop the madness" in Africa. Tribalism is back. The Europeans suppressed it, and the instant they left it came back. Throwing money at Africa, when it will just be stolen by men with guns who are not open to any methods of persuasion except force, isn't going to solve the problem. As Kwark said the only thing that could stop the "madness" is a long term occupation that is similar to colonizing or Imperialism. Unfourtanately everyone would get all hoopty doo about it and get all anti-imperialist.
It makes no sense to assume the 'white mans burden' or whatever you want to call it, but lets not forget that it was colonialism that made sure that African nation building never took place, and instead national identities were forced onto them by European countries, often using, as is the case in Congo (and Rwanda) earlier, tribal identities to further their control.
Fact is that up to this day, the state of Congo is largely artificial, and the political elites that are in control of the country are those that were 'selected' for it by the belgians during their colonialist rule. The various tribes/ethnic groups/whatever you want to call them never actually obtained an (implicit) agreement between eachother about what it means to be part of the same nation, and many would still disagree they actually are part of the same nation. Colonization is still to blame for at least part of the problems on the African continent, you only need to look at the origin of the Hutu/Tutsi differentiation (very relevant in this conflict also) to see that.
Long term occupation, or recolonizing or whatever, is the worst idea possible, because it will only delay the formation of true national identities and long term conflict resolution. Colonialism destroyed all early nation building had taken place in Africa, and there's no reason to assume that doing it again will lead to any different long term results.
Also, writing off all of Africa as 'failed' and 'stuck in tribalism' isn't true either. It's true for some problematic nations, but there are plenty of African states that are managing to create a fairly unified nation without (excessive) internal strife. Compare Benin to Nigeria, for example, both have largely similar 'tribes', yet one has almost no civil strife while the other does.
|
On November 23 2012 00:17 MattBarry wrote:
I've studied the Roman Empire a lot. Only examples I can think of is Julius Caesae exterminating a few Gallic tribes and the razing of Carthage. For the most part, Romans didn't exterminate local populations. Clearly, a few extermination of tribes and razing of cities, that isn't extermination of local populations is it?
You studied the roman empire, yet don't list that Romans:
Enslaved the local population of every area they have ever conquered.
Once removed the local population, settles the land, if they don't pillage the land and leave.
This occured in Britain, Gaul, Iberia, Dacia, Thrace, Pontus, Syria , Mesopotamia, the entire southern mediterranean.
Good studying there.
|
Theres a lot of finger pointing when it comes to blame.
We are all people of the world, and when attrocities happen to our fellow humans, its our duty to react in a humane way.
People in China, Argentina, Iceland, Solomon islands, etc etc have the burden. Doing nothing is true evil when it comes to attrocities. We've seen it time and time again... especially in africa.. a population is oppressed and to the point of ethnic cleansing.. meanwhile the world turns a blind eye. Its not just the politicians, but us who need to appeal to humanity. This nationalistic finger pointing is feeble.
|
On November 23 2012 00:49 Destro wrote:
Theres a lot of finger pointing when it comes to blame.
We are all people of the world, and when attrocities happen to our fellow humans, its our duty to react in a humane way.
People in China, Argentina, Iceland, Solomon islands, etc etc have the burden. Doing nothing is true evil when it comes to attrocities. We've seen it time and time again... especially in africa.. a population is oppressed and to the point of ethnic cleansing.. meanwhile the world turns a blind eye. Its not just the politicians, but us who need to appeal to humanity. This nationalistic finger pointing is feeble.
So, what would you do?
|
Theres a lot of finger pointing when it comes to blame.
We are all people of the world, and when attrocities happen to our fellow humans, its our duty to react in a humane way.
People in China, Argentina, Iceland, Solomon islands, etc etc have the burden. Doing nothing is true evil when it comes to attrocities. We've seen it time and time again... especially in africa.. a population is oppressed and to the point of ethnic cleansing.. meanwhile the world turns a blind eye. Its not just the politicians, but us who need to appeal to humanity. This nationalistic finger pointing is feeble.
Do what exactly? I know it's easy to to cry and complain that we should do "something" but what exactly?
If you do anything, it's the same people that start screaming that its a violation of sovereignty, and neo-imperialism.
The UN is crippled by the likes of those, made into an institution that writes a strongly worded letter whenever a group of people is massacred.
|
I don't think anybody can say that the Romans did not, in some sort, cleanse during the Campaigns in Gaul. It's pretty much considered genocide nowadays what Caesar did in Gaul.
But back to Congo and the Geopolitcal and Socio-economical debate(s)...
|
On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. You'd better be kidding...
|
On November 23 2012 00:57 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. You'd better be kidding...
I don't think that's what KwarK is suggesting as a solution to the current crisis, but he makes a valid point. This is real life :\
|
On November 23 2012 00:57 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote:
Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare.
Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. You'd better be kidding...
He's not. It's a legitimate point. Even if they were being completely exploited by a foreign power it would be better than the chaos and violence that is occuring now.
Colonialism, however, was completely terrible. Take Nigeria, for instance. Three ethnic groups with different religions and cultures were slapped together into one territory by the British. The British then used their cultural differences to discourage organized resistance by pitting them against each other and ultimately deeply fracturing the nation. This caused civil war and violence that continues to this day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
