DocVoc, that's a ridiculously sweeping generalization. People have been screwed over and recovered in most areas, but each area was screwed over to a different extent. India was probably the least fucked up area from imperialism and recovered rapidly...if you don't count partition and the resulting deaths.
South Africa was basically a warzone right up until twenty years ago, and it wasn't fucked up all that badly, either. Somalia and Nigeria haven't recovered much, either...and god help Zimbabwe.
Congo just happens to be one of the most devastated areas in Africa from the effects of imperialism. And the solution you seem to be suggesting is...more imperialism. As always, the conqueror is assumed to be benevolent and sympathetic your aims, when historically...well, it seldom happens so neatly, to put it mildly. Benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government on the planet for any nation, but can seldom be taken for granted.
I'm of the opinion that invasion tends to be...counterproductive. Everyone hates you, or everyone who could hate you ends up dead. Better to boost growth through more efficient methods that don't incur blowback. Micronutrients, vaccines, and mosquito nets come to mind. Possibly contraceptives as well.
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...
The same people are suffering for the same reasons while the same interests profit as before.
On November 23 2012 03:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A peacekeeping force will end up invading and recapturing the whole region. You don't really think that just because an army is called a peacekeeping force, they will magically impose peace do you? The guns they carry and and amoured personnel carriers they ride upon are just for show, they shoot out peace!
And then they will withdraw. Repeat ad infinitum, and across as many countries as within living memory.
There are numerous instances of successful peacekeeping (and I mean that) operations in the world history especially in recent history. You know that, right?
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.
It seems an odd conclusion to reach that it was ethnic cleasning that primarily kept the Roman Empire intact when there is relatively few examples of it compared to the magnitude and extent of Rome's conquests. Extermination has rarely been a Roman policy, despite a few examples over its centuries long reign.
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.
It seems an odd conclusion to reach that it was ethnic cleasning that primarily kept the Roman Empire intact when there is relatively few examples of it compared to the magnitude and extent of Rome's conquests. Extermination has rarely been a Roman policy, despite a few examples over its centuries long reign.
Romans usually split up the revolting subjects and spread them across the empire, even they where really problematic they'd more often just enslave them, as corpses can't do much of use. After repeatedly smashing down revolts or with a particularly cruel ruler they might turn to eradication like most empires and countries in power have (fuck, even the Bible and Tora describe genocide by righteous zealots, and the Qu'ran flat out tells you to exterminate Jews), but this is never the preferred option.
Quite frankly, people here are making a really big deal out of genocide in a couple of situations to prove some disturbing form of European guilt, guess what, genocide has been around since the time people had the power to do so, from the Egyptians to the Romans to the Chinese, hell, the Golden Horde alone was responsible for the genocide of thousands of seperate cultures and you people are trying to make genocide a European thing? Africa, the Middle East and Asia where the theater of numerous genocides when Europe was still figuring out how to agriculture.
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.
I'm glad we agree. My post was not directed at you if that's what you thought???
On November 23 2012 03:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A peacekeeping force will end up invading and recapturing the whole region. You don't really think that just because an army is called a peacekeeping force, they will magically impose peace do you? The guns they carry and and amoured personnel carriers they ride upon are just for show, they shoot out peace!
And then they will withdraw. Repeat ad infinitum, and across as many countries as within living memory.
There are numerous instances of successful peacekeeping (and I mean that) operations in the world history especially in recent history. You know that, right?
Honestly most successful peacekeeping missions would never have devolved into war regardless, and many of the wars that did happen they didn't bother trying, see the connection? UN peacekeeping is pretty much a joke at this point. The UN has no muscle, unless a country does something universally wrong they cannot do anything.
It's too late to peace keep in Congo, there is no peace left to keep. They could send a peace making force. How do you think they make peace? ya... by force.
You're living in a fantasy world thinking if the U.N. shows up with a few hundred troops both sides would just drop their weapons and say hallelujah. One side has an advantage in this fight and they expect to win, if the West comes in and stops the war for them and keeps the current leader in power what do you think happens? The people who support the rebels will think the West is running their country, and they would be, the war would just reignite in the future.
Im pretty tired of countries/conflicts like that have to be the burden of the West and the UN. To me it seems the entire region is one big black whole and money wasting pitt.
I'm so tired of listening to imperialism get blamed for all of Africa's problems. Europeans had a presence in South America, North America, Asia, The Middle East, and yes, Africa. Whenever there's instability in Africa it's not their fault for having awful infrastructure, an enormous amount of corruption, and high crime rates. It's Europe's fault because they had colonies in Africa a couple hundred years ago.
On November 23 2012 08:16 TheRealArtemis wrote: Im pretty tired of countries/conflicts like that have to be the burden of the West and the UN. To me it seems the entire region is one big black whole and money wasting pitt.
Don't understand how you can completely turn your backs on so many people.
On November 23 2012 08:28 Tewks44 wrote: I'm so tired of listening to imperialism get blamed for all of Africa's problems. Europeans had a presence in South America, North America, Asia, The Middle East, and yes, Africa. Whenever there's instability in Africa it's not their fault for having awful infrastructure, an enormous amount of corruption, and high crime rates. It's Europe's fault because they had colonies in Africa a couple hundred years ago.
I really hope you aren't using hyperbole. It doesn't add to meaningful discussion.
Western nations, and now China, are heavily invested in Africa. A lot of conflict in South America is influenced by the west. Middle-east, obvious, with troops and drones. North America, look at the aboriginals.
No one is trying to say that Africans are not responsible either. But foreign presence has not made things better. Simply because short-term foreign interests are not aligned with long-term African interests.
On November 22 2012 17:10 RenSC2 wrote: Dear America (my country),
We already have Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a potential major threat in Iran which can't be ignored completely. We have conflict in Israel/Palestine. We have some involvement in Libya. We're waiting on Syria, but will likely be involved in some way soon. There's always a threat from N. Korea looming and even China seems to be pushing it's borders.
We are stretched thin. We don't need the Congo. We'd spend more money stabilizing that region than we could ever hope to gain from it in mineral wealth. They aren't attacking us. They aren't threatening us. They have nothing to do with us. Let's keep it that way.
Let the world see what happens when the United States doesn't get involved (5 million deaths and counting!). Maybe then the world will see that we aren't the big baddies that go around sowing conflict like they blame us for in the middle east. Maybe then the world will see that our military activities actually prevent more deaths than they cause. Maybe then the world will get back to wanting us involved.
Not now.
Nobody in the US wants to stabilise the Congo. The nightmare situation for Western interests is that a single warlord gains control over the area and is no longer dependent upon outside support to maintain his slave labour empire. Then he can work children to death in mines and sell his produce to the highest bidder becoming colossally rich until a viral propaganda video sweeps the internet telling everyone how awful it is and we sponsor a proxy to destabilise the region again. The ideal situation is one where you can buy from a number of warlords, all operating their own forced labour camps, and pay them in black market guns at a massive markup on their real value. And if they don't like the price then you sell the guns to some other warlord and see how the first warlord likes fighting against that shiny new hardware. The wealth still leaves the nation, the people are still worked to death but white hands stay very clean.
Of course back in the day what would happen is Mr Rothschild and a few other gentlemen in London would invest in some infrastructure and some mines in a highly unstable region and predict making unimaginable wealth from them. They would arm and pay off the local elites to oppress the people and keep the area stable while the money went back to England and the local elites sent their children to Oxford. You'd keep enough people paid off and keep them well enough armed that the region remained stable and you'd make the key people complicit in the arrangement while at the same time making sure they knew that if they did get any independent ideas they could always be replaced. Unfortunately in the 1940s we sold most of it to you (which is why the US ended up tied up in South America) and in the 50s Marxism hit the third world which made it all less profitable for everyone. If you're in London and your investment is looking less stable because the people living there want a cut of the wealth then obviously you go to Parliament and explain how actually this is the politician's problem, even though the bankers privately invested and knew the risks, and then you just invade (see the Suez crisis). However if you're getting off on anti-imperialist rhetoric (see the US) then you can't just invade places whenever the locals cry about nationalising foreign owned industries in their countries and then you have to sponsor local factions to fight civil wars against other local factions (see CIA history in South America).
Basically the US isn't going to invade because it's not their style but this whole mess would have been prevented if you'd either left running the world to the people who were good at it or not intervened the last time we attempted shameless imperialism in Africa. Imperialism may have been an abhorrent system but at least the British were good at it, the American version is just inefficient.
I recommend the following books to you: The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
On November 23 2012 08:28 Tewks44 wrote: I'm so tired of listening to imperialism get blamed for all of Africa's problems. Europeans had a presence in South America, North America, Asia, The Middle East, and yes, Africa. Whenever there's instability in Africa it's not their fault for having awful infrastructure, an enormous amount of corruption, and high crime rates. It's Europe's fault because they had colonies in Africa a couple hundred years ago.
It was a couple of hundred years ago? (A bit more seriously posed question since I'm really interested in an answer: What are US school children taught about colonialism? Is this a commonplace gigantic misunderstanding?)
Also, the US in particular kept fucking around in Africa during the Cold War, including in Congo. I wouldn't leave the european powers blameless here (in the case of Congo, Belgium is particularly guilty), but still.
On November 23 2012 08:28 Tewks44 wrote: I'm so tired of listening to imperialism get blamed for all of Africa's problems. Europeans had a presence in South America, North America, Asia, The Middle East, and yes, Africa. Whenever there's instability in Africa it's not their fault for having awful infrastructure, an enormous amount of corruption, and high crime rates. It's Europe's fault because they had colonies in Africa a couple hundred years ago.
I really hope you aren't using hyperbole. It doesn't add to meaningful discussion.
Western nations, and now China, are heavily invested in Africa. A lot of conflict in South America is influenced by the west. Middle-east, obvious, with troops and drones. North America, look at the aboriginals.
No one is trying to say that Africans are not responsible either. But foreign presence has not made things better. Simply because short-term foreign interests are not aligned with long-term African interests.
To the ones that don't think there's any culpability by the West have very selective hearing that feeds their indignation.
Same goes for those in the left that ignore or excuse the blood on the Africans' hands.
It's a toxic exchange driven by ideology and emotion.
On November 23 2012 08:16 TheRealArtemis wrote: Im pretty tired of countries/conflicts like that have to be the burden of the West and the UN. To me it seems the entire region is one big black whole and money wasting pitt.
Haha. Tell that to the business world and they'll laugh you out of the room.
On November 22 2012 17:10 RenSC2 wrote: Dear America (my country),
We already have Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a potential major threat in Iran which can't be ignored completely. We have conflict in Israel/Palestine. We have some involvement in Libya. We're waiting on Syria, but will likely be involved in some way soon. There's always a threat from N. Korea looming and even China seems to be pushing it's borders.
We are stretched thin. We don't need the Congo. We'd spend more money stabilizing that region than we could ever hope to gain from it in mineral wealth. They aren't attacking us. They aren't threatening us. They have nothing to do with us. Let's keep it that way.
Let the world see what happens when the United States doesn't get involved (5 million deaths and counting!). Maybe then the world will see that we aren't the big baddies that go around sowing conflict like they blame us for in the middle east. Maybe then the world will see that our military activities actually prevent more deaths than they cause. Maybe then the world will get back to wanting us involved.
Not now.
Nobody in the US wants to stabilise the Congo. The nightmare situation for Western interests is that a single warlord gains control over the area and is no longer dependent upon outside support to maintain his slave labour empire. Then he can work children to death in mines and sell his produce to the highest bidder becoming colossally rich until a viral propaganda video sweeps the internet telling everyone how awful it is and we sponsor a proxy to destabilise the region again. The ideal situation is one where you can buy from a number of warlords, all operating their own forced labour camps, and pay them in black market guns at a massive markup on their real value. And if they don't like the price then you sell the guns to some other warlord and see how the first warlord likes fighting against that shiny new hardware. The wealth still leaves the nation, the people are still worked to death but white hands stay very clean.
Of course back in the day what would happen is Mr Rothschild and a few other gentlemen in London would invest in some infrastructure and some mines in a highly unstable region and predict making unimaginable wealth from them. They would arm and pay off the local elites to oppress the people and keep the area stable while the money went back to England and the local elites sent their children to Oxford. You'd keep enough people paid off and keep them well enough armed that the region remained stable and you'd make the key people complicit in the arrangement while at the same time making sure they knew that if they did get any independent ideas they could always be replaced. Unfortunately in the 1940s we sold most of it to you (which is why the US ended up tied up in South America) and in the 50s Marxism hit the third world which made it all less profitable for everyone. If you're in London and your investment is looking less stable because the people living there want a cut of the wealth then obviously you go to Parliament and explain how actually this is the politician's problem, even though the bankers privately invested and knew the risks, and then you just invade (see the Suez crisis). However if you're getting off on anti-imperialist rhetoric (see the US) then you can't just invade places whenever the locals cry about nationalising foreign owned industries in their countries and then you have to sponsor local factions to fight civil wars against other local factions (see CIA history in South America).
Basically the US isn't going to invade because it's not their style but this whole mess would have been prevented if you'd either left running the world to the people who were good at it or not intervened the last time we attempted shameless imperialism in Africa. Imperialism may have been an abhorrent system but at least the British were good at it, the American version is just inefficient.
I recommend the following books to you: The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
Oh hey look, someone who has actually studied colonization and its economic effects on Africa.
For anyone that hasn't already seen it, Hans Rosling gave a great TED talk a couple years back on African development. While not directly related to the OP it still provides some pretty good background information on Africa as a whole.
On November 23 2012 03:58 docvoc wrote: I don't think there are really any fingers to point to at this point. There are a lot of things that could have been done differently there, but the main thing that one must understand is that nothing can be done at this point. People screwed up the entire world, but unlike most areas where people rose up and grabbed power, modernized, and sucked the dick of other big countries to become stabilized, the congo never did that. In fact, most modern African nations have done that to the Nth degree, but a lot of subsaharan ones just can't get on their feet to do so. After Europe split up africa into it's own vassal areas, they destroyed the tribal grounds, along with the make up of pre-european imperialist africa. So basically, Kwark's opinion, though valid, is historically incorrect. What should be done now is imperialism. At this point, some country needs to go into the Congo, unify it under 1 dictator that is bent on westernizing the country, and then pretty much let it play out from there. If there is a revolution from that point, so be it. As much as I hate nation-building, at this point that really seems like the only thing left to do there.
Doc, why not just trade peacefully with them, and do some quiet nudging to get them in the right direction? Instead of selling them weapons, sell them infrastructure and education?
how exactly are you proposing to sell infrastracture and education?
On November 23 2012 08:16 TheRealArtemis wrote: Im pretty tired of countries/conflicts like that have to be the burden of the West and the UN. To me it seems the entire region is one big black whole and money wasting pitt.
Don't understand how you can completely turn your backs on so many people.
I have always felt that people with a lot money have more responsibility to help others in need because they have more means/resources to do so. Like the High power nations with a lot of money and military need to provide help where its needed. But Its like it never ends in that place. Its like as soon as one conflict stops, another one comes thats worse then the previous one.
Maybe im a bit too pessimestic about it all. But to me it seems like the UN/west once again, can send endless amount of money and military aid and it will either not help at all, or simply wont be enough.
Count me in to the US staying out of it group. However that is mostly due to me seeing Africa as a giant abyss in respect to throwing money and resources at it. America and the rest of the world needs to get their fingers out of Africa's pot and let that country learn to walk for themselves. Besides, the rest of the world has plenty enough on their plate right now stopping the world economy from collapsing. As to some earlier comments about America devolving into civil war, I wouldn't eliminate that from possibility. While the current monkeys rattling their cages because their idiot of a candidate lost are to be ignored, there are deeper issues that could trigger it in the next 50 years. Well, perhaps civil war is the wrong thing, more of a government coup de etat. Hopefully not, but we shall see.
EPT
