Turning a new and bloody page in Congo’s tragic history, the increasingly muscular M23 rebel group said Wednesday that after taking the main eastern city of Goma, it was prepared to capture the capital of Kinshasa and overthrow the government in a military coup.
“We will go to Kinshasa, we will unite the country,” the group’s military spokesman Col. Vianney Kazarama told a cheering crowd of civilians, police and government soldiers in Goma just one day after UN peacekeepers held their fire and watched the city fall, and Congolese troops fled for their lives.
Kazarama later softened his stand, according to the Guardian, saying that the rebels would take the capital “if people invite us. We obey the people.”
But the rebels’ recruitment efforts were in overdrive, and by the end of the day, starving, scantily paid Congolese government troops had swelled M23 ranks by nearly 3,000 defecting soldiers.
Rwanda is a mainstay of the rebels’ success, said a damning UN report tabled Wednesday. Written by a group of experts, it exhaustively documents how the thousands-strong M23 militia morphed from a small band of Congolese army defectors just eight months ago, to a sophisticated, well-armed and virtually unstoppable force that dominates Africa’s Great Lakes region.
The report said Rwanda had violated an arms embargo “by providing direct military support to the M23 rebels, facilitating recruitment, encouraging and facilitating desertions from the armed forces of (Congo) and providing arms, ammunition, intelligence and political advice.”
And in the most serious allegations of Rwandan involvement yet, it said that the “de facto chain of command” for the rebels “culminates with the Minister of Defence of Rwanda, Gen. James Kabarebe.”
Rwandan recruits were escorted to the Congolese border by government troops, which “confiscated their telephones, burned their identity cards and instructed them to claim to be Congolese in the event of capture,” the report said. Documented with copious evidence — including eyewitness reports and images implicating Rwandan officials in the M23 militia operations — it said the rebels had received regular deliveries of weapons to their headquarters from Rwanda every two weeks, building an arsenal that outstrips that of Congo’s government.
The Rwandan government strongly denies the report’s allegations, claiming the experts were biased and information inaccurate.
A UN official told the Associated Press that Rwanda had effectively “annexed” eastern Congo by sponsoring rebel incursions.
M23’s growing ambitions heap new threats on a country that has lost some 5 million people in persistent civil wars. Armed groups from neighbouring countries have rampaged over Congo’s borders, settling old scores and fighting to capture new mineral wealth that potentially awards the victors billions of dollars. Savage attacks on women earned it the title of “rape capital of the world.”
Conflict ignited after the 1994 Rwandan genocide led by the ethnic Hutu regime, when more than two million Hutus fled over its border, including those responsible for the genocide. With the complicity of the Congolese government they attacked its ethnic Tutsis. Rwanda sent its own militias, aided by Uganda, to overthrow the Congolese government.
But the Hutu militias remained, and Rwanda backed another coup against then-president Laurent Kabila, who called on five neighbouring countries for help, sparking a massive war in Congo. Trouble flared again in 2008, but a peace deal was eventually forged between Rwanda and Congo and a UN peacekeeping force installed. The current rebellion was launched eight months ago by mutinous troops accusing the government of failing to stick to the deal.
As well as Rwanda, the report also pointed a finger at neighbouring Uganda, which it said was working against the Congolese government, with senior Ugandan officials providing “direct troop reinforcements in Congolese territory, weapons deliveries, technical assistance, joint planning, political advice.”
There has been little respite for Congo’s traumatized civilians. Since the rebellion began, brutal attacks have increased, as M23 tried to form coalitions with local groups in the Kivu region. Hundreds of Congolese Hutus have been killed, and more than 800 homes burned. About 60,000 civilians have been displaced.
Recruitment of child soldiers has also escalated under M23 commanders notorious for forcing children to fight, and numerous women have been raped.
The report said that some commanders “ordered the extrajudicial executions of dozens of recruits and prisoners of war.”
The struggle for territory in mineral-rich Congo is a prime motive of the wars and rebellions that have plagued the country. “Smuggling into both Burundi and Rwanda is on the rise,” the report said, adding that the mineral-tagging system meant to stop the practice is jeopardized by “laundering of Congolese minerals” by mining co-operatives.
“Several traders have contributed to financing M23 rebels using profits resulting from the smuggling of Congolese minerals into Rwanda,” the report said. Gold, which fetches huge prices on the world market, is also smuggled out of the country, sold for millions of U.S. dollars.
With files from Star wire services
A United Nations report released Wednesday says the Rwandan military is commanding and supporting the rebel force that overtook a major city in eastern Congo this week.
UN troops prove useless
The highly anticipated report says, “The government of Rwanda continues to violate the arms embargo by providing direct military support to the M23 rebels, facilitating recruitment, encouraging and facilitating desertions from the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and providing arms, ammunition, intelligence and political advice.”
The report also says, “The de facto chain of command of M23 includes Gen. Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Minister of Defence of Rwanda, Gen. James Kabarebe.”
The report also accuses Uganda of involvement. Uganda has said it would pull its troops out of UN peacekeeping operations if it was named in the report.
Both Rwanda and Uganda have denied supporting the M23 rebel movement, which took the city of Goma, which has a population of more than 1 million, on Tuesday.
Thousands of Congolese soldiers and policemen defected to the M23 rebels Wednesday as rebel leaders vowed to take control of all Congo, including the capital, Kinshasa.
The UN accuses the M23 of grave crimes including recruiting child soldiers, summary executions and rape.
The UN report says, “Senior officials of the Government of Uganda have also provided support to M23 in the form of direct troop reinforcements in Congolese territory, weapons deliveries, technical assistance, joint planning, political advice and facilitation of external relations.”
The report adds, “Both Governments have also co-operated to support the creation and expansion of the political branch of M23 and have consistently advocated on behalf of the rebels. M23 and its allies include six sanctioned individuals, some of whom reside in or regularly travel to Rwanda and Uganda.”
Earlier Wednesday, the UN’s special representative for Congo said the 19,000-strong UN peacekeeping force there is being stretched thin by multiple rebel militias in the eastern part of the country, including Goma.
Roger Meece made the assessment in a live videoconference linkup to the Security Council from Kinshasa.
The council is assessing the performance of the MONUSCO peacekeeping force after 1,500 of its troops stood by Tuesday and let M23 rebels take Goma without resistance.
UN helicopters over the weekend fired hundreds of rockets at the rebels in a bid to slow their advance on the city of 1 million.
But U.N. officials say the UN force commander in Goma ordered the peacekeepers not to shoot Tuesday in order to avoid provoking a major firefight in the city after Congolese troops retreated.
Meece said the M23 rebels were “well provisioned,” uniformed and supplied with weapons, including night-vision goggles, that clearly came from some outside party.
He did not name Rwanda or Uganda.
TLDR: M23, a Congolese rebel group, just captured the two largest cities in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, and is now prepped to move on the DRC capital, Kinshasa. Massive amounts of DRC troops are defecting to M23. The UN is going into full obs mode, and analysts speculate that M23 is likely supplied by Rwanda, Uganda, or another 3rd party, since the rebel group has equipment like night vision goggles and 120mm Israeli-made mortars, and better small arms than the Congolese army.
The DRC is looking at getting outside countries to help supply it with weapons as well.
For reference, the last Congolese Civil War, lasted five years, involved eight African nations, and killed over five million people.
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.
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.
As non PC as that is, it's probably true given how African politicians tend to bleed their own country. Granted when Western nations bleed countries they aren't much better, but eh, the fact that one can actually contemplate the latter as possibly being better says a whole lot about the native politicians.
Should be noted that if it weren't for the imperialism of the past, Africa would probably not be in the.... questionable shape it is right now. Would it be a better place if the imperialism hadn't ended? Maybe. But that doesn't make imperialism a good idea, it probably got us where we are today, in terms of the instability.
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.
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.
Multinational corporate interests, which are in many cases effectively stronger than many of the sub-Saharan regional governments, are playing a role in the continued stranglehold of violence in the region, though to what degree it is hard to say. One can look at the relative success of countries like Ghana and Zambia and it becomes to hard ignore the coincidence of dramatic cutbacks in foreign corporate influence and the sudden surges in economic growth. In the case of the Congo, I'm afraid, its hard to see anything more than belligerent violence.
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.
Gotta disagree here. Claiming that, since outright colonialism wins over colonialism by proxy, we should invade, ignores the infinitely better option of respecting local sovereignty and simply leaving them alone.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
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.
Also, Britain never owned Congo. The DRC had the misfortune to be colonized by the Belgians, who left behind only 20 college-educated people in the entire country and tore up thousands of km of railroads, bridges, ports, and roadways when they left the country.
One more point: I will agree that by and large, the British were a better colonial agent than the Dutch or (heaven forbid) the French; however, the same institutional and economic gains made by a colonial legacy also occurred in many states untouched by colonialism, such as Siam/Thailand and Nationalist China. The gains of colonialism could easily be replicated by non-colonial processes without a similar abrogation of sovereignty.
On November 22 2012 16:35 Yuljan wrote: Sub-Sahara Africa is beyond help.
looks like it
The Congo region is probably (maybe tied with Somalia) the worst. However, it is also the prime example how european colonialism fucked things up, being the one country that arguably suffered the most (Leopold II..).
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.
Gotta disagree here. Claiming that, since outright colonialism wins over colonialism by proxy, we should invade, ignores the infinitely better option of respecting local sovereignty and simply leaving them alone.
I guess the question would be infinitely better for whom? Public Relations? Let them fight their bloody civil wars every 1-5 years. The average citizen? Colonialism, period, end of story. Your friends and family don't die in the wars, and you pay the cost in natural resources, not blood. That is not even getting to what local sovereignty means with the foreign invaders a couple countries over than the ones an ocean away. Infinitely better? Only for PR.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
Don't read so much Russia Today. It fries your brain and makes you say stupid things.
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.
Also, Britain never owned Congo. The DRC had the misfortune to be colonized by the Belgians, who left behind only 20 college-educated people in the entire country and tore up thousands of km of railroads, bridges, ports, and roadways when they left the country.
One more point: I will agree that by and large, the British were a better colonial agent than the Dutch or (heaven forbid) the French; however, the same institutional and economic gains made by a colonial legacy also occurred in many states untouched by colonialism, such as Siam/Thailand and Nationalist China. The gains of colonialism could easily be replicated by non-colonial processes without a similar abrogation of sovereignty.
Taiwan had a major Dutch East India trading fort for a few decades in the early 1600's along with some Spanish settlements, though these were quite short lived if I remember correctly. In any case, Thailand is the better example
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.
You could just go the middle path like most European countries and only intervene (and only in a limited fashion) when civilians are put on the line, instead of a fullblown invasion which no one wants.
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.
Gotta disagree here. Claiming that, since outright colonialism wins over colonialism by proxy, we should invade, ignores the infinitely better option of respecting local sovereignty and simply leaving them alone.
I guess the question would be infinitely better for whom? Public Relations? Let them fight their bloody civil wars every 1-5 years. The average citizen? Colonialism, period, end of story. Your friends and family don't die in the wars, and you pay the cost in natural resources, not blood. That is not even getting to what local sovereignty means with the foreign invaders a couple countries over than the ones an ocean away. Infinitely better? Only for PR.
Not necessarily. Whenever you go and occupy or colonize another country, you run the risk of blowback and terrorism, and that's on top of the quite bloody nature of anti-partisan duty. Chechnya/Dagestan; Northern Ireland; Iraq; Afghanistan; French Algeria; the British Mandate for Palestine, to name a few, and in many of those instances the "occupiers" in question even had good claims to the land there.
The thing is, people will always hate each other, and in our globalized age, sophisticated weapons are finding their way into ever more un-sophisticated actors AND these unsophisticated folks have ever more ways to strike at the heart of civilized societies. Put simply, wouldn't you rather have a bunch of angry young men with the ability to buy high-tech weapons holding grudges against each other than holding grudges against you?
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
Civil war in north america? That's not going to happen in our lifetime.
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.
Fuck man, do you not realize the US is giving Rwanda 200mil a year to buy high-tech weapons for its private little fun and games in the Eastern Congo?
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
We're about 150 years since our last civil war. I think we can make it through this century without another one. If you're talking about those succession petitions, don't worry about em. It's mostly the same damn people waving American flags and talking about how much they love America. They're just angry that their guy lost. The majority of them will forget about it within a year. Another large group of them will be fine as soon as another white man is elected to be president. And the rest will just be some fringe group of crazies... can never get rid of em completely.
But honestly, if America has another civil war, stay out. If we're fighting against each other, neither side would want outside influence (at least until it's obvious that one side is the losing side ::waves to the Libyan rebels:: ). I think it'd be very rare for any country's citizens to actually want outside influence in their own civil wars.
In the Congo, the whole region is a mess and neither side seems too sympathetic or appealing. Whichever side we support, the innocent civilians are still going to suffer. I'd rather not be the country taking the blame for the citizens' suffering. That has a nasty tendency of creating hatred towards the US which creates terrorism against us.
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.
Also, Britain never owned Congo. The DRC had the misfortune to be colonized by the Belgians, who left behind only 20 college-educated people in the entire country and tore up thousands of km of railroads, bridges, ports, and roadways when they left the country.
One more point: I will agree that by and large, the British were a better colonial agent than the Dutch or (heaven forbid) the French; however, the same institutional and economic gains made by a colonial legacy also occurred in many states untouched by colonialism, such as Siam/Thailand and Nationalist China. The gains of colonialism could easily be replicated by non-colonial processes without a similar abrogation of sovereignty.
Taiwan had a major Dutch East India trading fort for a few decades in the early 1600's along with some Spanish settlements, though these were quite short lived if I remember correctly. In any case, Thailand is the better example
I was referring to mainland China from 1911 to 1949.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
We're about 150 years since our last civil war. I think we can make it through this century without another one. If you're talking about those succession petitions, don't worry about em. It's mostly the same damn people waving American flags and talking about how much they love America. They're just angry that their guy lost. The majority of them will forget about it within a year. Another large group of them will be fine as soon as another white man is elected to be president. And the rest will just be some fringe group of crazies... can never get rid of em completely.
But honestly, if America has another civil war, stay out. If we're fighting against each other, neither side would want outside influence (at least until it's obvious that one side is the losing side ::waves to the Libyan rebels:: ). I think it'd be very rare for any country's citizens to actually want outside influence in their own civil wars.
In the Congo, the whole region is a mess and neither side seems too sympathetic or appealing. Whichever side we support, the innocent civilians are still going to suffer. I'd rather not be the country taking the blame for the citizens' suffering. That has a nasty tendency of creating hatred towards the US which creates terrorism against us.
An American Civil War is the last thing this world needs. We're in the middle of a gigantic recession, everyone. If Greece and Spain backing out of the EU is enough to push up global bond yields, an armed Texian secession would likely lead to a new Great Depression
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.
There is merit to what your saying, and in a lot of cases countries under Imperial rule were better off then when they gained their independence. However in the case of the Congo while it was under Belgian colonialism was considered the worst man-made humanitarian disasters of the turn of the 20th century. As there was no census at the time its hard to know how high the loss of human life in the Congo was at the time, but it was estimated ~10 mill.
So no, life probably not better in the Congo during imperialism. It was probably just as shitty as it is now.
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.
You could just go the middle path like most European countries and only intervene (and only in a limited fashion) when civilians are put on the line, instead of a fullblown invasion which no one wants.
Has there ever been a conflict where civilians weren't instantly "put on the line"? Conflict in the era of explosives = civilians die. If you "waited" until civilians were put on the line, then you'd get involved instantly in every conflict around the entire globe.
And what exactly does a "limited fashion" do? Did getting involved in Libya "in a limited fashion" actually make things better? No, we picked a winner and that side killed most of the other side. The surviving parts of the losing side took it out on the US during the embassy attack and if you think they're done with that, think again.
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.
Fuck man, do you not realize the US is giving Rwanda 200mil a year to buy high-tech weapons for its private little fun and games in the Eastern Congo?
Well, that's not the reason why we give them money, but I do agree that we should not be doing so.
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.
Just because you don't get involved in a strategically unimportant conflict doesn't mean that America's primary motivation for throwing its weight around (And damn the collateral damage) is advancing it's geopolitical agenda.
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.
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.
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.
So we're bad at imperialism? I agree 100%. Just one more reason why we should stay out.
And it's wrong to say that nobody in the US wants to stabilize the Congo. The vast majority of Americans would like a stable world. The interests of a few powerful individuals (American or otherwise) rarely line up with the interests of the American people, in or out of our country.
I'm simply adding my name to the list of American's who want us to stay out of this business, while at the same time pointing out to the rest of the world that our military is not involved (sadly, I can't say we are completely uninvolved) and the conflict is resulting in many more deaths than the conflicts we actually fight in.
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'm not really sure going back to a a system that did things like using the severed hands of black people as currency would really be a step up, though I suppose if we cut all their hands off none of them could post to contradict you.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
On November 22 2012 17:31 Technique wrote: I don't think it's a civil war tbh.
It's more than likely Rwanda trying to steal from Congo again.
Who's backing Rwanda though?
I haven't read up yet on the situation at this very moment, but throughout the 90's the RPF (which now holds power in Rwanda after the civil war) has very close ties with Uganda. Basically Uganda helped aid the RPF in a similar fashion as the Rwandan Government is now funding rebel factions in the east Congo regeions, as this group tries to carve out a greater sphere of political dominance. The majority Tutsi Rwandan government has come under harsh scrutiny from international agencies concerning the stranglehold they hold, and the disconcerting means of doing so. Aside from European and American powers having a less interest in general post-Somalia and post-Rwanda, etc in the 90's, politically the Rwandan government has been able to get away with more because of just how horrible the RGF and Interhamwe extermination of Tutsi and Hutu who were seen as Tutsi-friendly. There is a certain amount of political capital there. I really hope that the UN has learned something by now and there can be an actual de-escalation of the violence here.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why.
Kwark, the real issue here isn't an argument between violence by proxy and an abrogation of sovereignty.
The real issue is how to get to a sustainable development model that plows the fruits of natural wealth back into infrastructure without needing the Rothschild/Rhodes-esque middleman.
Look at Scandinavia--they did it quite successfully. It can be done. Why revert to a more messy model when a better one already exists?
I feel like the tribal system of old is still in place today it just much more bloody due to modern weapons making killing much easier. I can't even remember half the names of rebel groups that hide out in the dense jungles in Central Africa. Each small group holds a region of territory as their own and wars with the neighbouring tribes.
If a strong military nation were to move into the region and stabilize it and bring some riches to the people and stop the killing by just out right just slaughtering all the rebel groups would it really be a bad thing?
I read something interesting on how Western aid actually fucks Africa up even more. By providing free food to the masses it makes farming an impossible job. How can a small farmer working by hand possibly compete with free food? With no stream of income it's impossible for them to begin to build up their infrastructure.
Wouldn't it make even better sense to just trade with a unitary government that can provide its own stability and builds its own excellent infrastructure to get resources out cheaply without massive bloodletting? You know, like modern-day South Africa, Canada, or Saudi Arabia?
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why.
Kwark, the real issue here isn't an argument between violence by proxy and an abrogation of sovereignty.
The real issue is how to get to a sustainable development model that plows the fruits of natural wealth back into infrastructure without needing the Rothschild/Rhodes-esque middleman.
Look at Scandinavia--they did it quite successfully. It can be done. Why revert to a more messy model when a better one already exists?
That's a tough idea to sell when the guys you need to buy it are the middle men. Where's the margin in them keeping their money? Anyway, it's probably too late now anyway to be honest. Look at India and Pakistan, that whole thing was started by the British and they're still pissed at each other for some reason and it won't be resolved any time soon. No amount of development will let Africa forgive itself for what it's done, you'll just have richer countries engaging in higher tech wars.
On November 22 2012 18:44 Shady Sands wrote: Wouldn't it make even better sense to just trade with a unitary government that can provide its own stability and builds its own excellent infrastructure to get resources out cheaply without massive bloodletting? You know, like modern-day South Africa, Canada, or Saudi Arabia?
They could dictate their own price on their raw materials or object to the oil fields/diamond mines being owned by foreigners. There's no profit in it (for anyone but them). The idea is absurd. Also the example of South Africa is pretty odd given they're still engaging in state brutality against the black labourers in their mines, we just overlook it for a price.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/south-african-police-shoot-striking-miners Mine owned by Lonmin, formerly known as London and Rhodesian Mining and Land Company Limited, based in London. Rising unionism among the blacks threatened the bottom line but fortunately the local elites felt it necessary to fire guns at them until they got over it. Working as intended.
The scenes we saw in South Africa will keep happening until the local government loses stomach for being a proxy for Western business interests or until it is no longer able to repress its own people. At this point someone will seed some kind of ethnic conflict, arm both sides and then explain to them that the public would be upset if they openly traded guns for blood platinum so unfortunately they have to pay far more than the guns are worth.
On November 22 2012 18:42 tokicheese wrote: That region of Africa is just so fucked...
I feel like the tribal system of old is still in place today it just much more bloody due to modern weapons making killing much easier. I can't even remember half the names of rebel groups that hide out in the dense jungles in Central Africa. Each small group holds a region of territory as their own and wars with the neighbouring tribes.
If a strong military nation were to move into the region and stabilize it and bring some riches to the people and stop the killing by just out right just slaughtering all the rebel groups would it really be a bad thing?
I read something interesting on how Western aid actually fucks Africa up even more. By providing free food to the masses it makes farming an impossible job. How can a small farmer working by hand possibly compete with free food? With no stream of income it's impossible for them to begin to build up their infrastructure.
As long they are still natural resources available to be exploited by the first world, as long there is not going to be peace/meaningful development in Africa. The whole mess is just too profitable for us.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why.
Kwark, the real issue here isn't an argument between violence by proxy and an abrogation of sovereignty.
The real issue is how to get to a sustainable development model that plows the fruits of natural wealth back into infrastructure without needing the Rothschild/Rhodes-esque middleman.
Look at Scandinavia--they did it quite successfully. It can be done. Why revert to a more messy model when a better one already exists?
That's a tough idea to sell when the guys you need to buy it are the middle men. Where's the margin in them keeping their money? Anyway, it's probably too late now anyway to be honest. Look at India and Pakistan, that whole thing was started by the British and they're still pissed at each other for some reason and it won't be resolved any time soon. No amount of development will let Africa forgive itself for what it's done, you'll just have richer countries engaging in higher tech wars.
It was Jinnahs idea for a separate muslim nation. The british, and everyone else wanted a unified country. The big problems were the egos Nehru, and Jinnah. Neither wanted to let go, and Jinnah decided he wanted a country for himself. If your talking about the hindu-muslim divide, that existed way before the british.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism.
I really hope the UN doesn't twiddle its thumbs and actually does something. Lord knows the western world only steps in when money or political interests are involved.
When will the world put humanity before money and politics?
The UN seems like the only armed force in the world with good intentions, but gets wrapped in international politics that cuts its arms and legs off. I wish the UN had more power and abolished the bullshit security council.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism.
Well maybe we should move forward more independence and rights/ability for third world / developing countries to develop with out undue influence of the Western states instead of wishing for a return to colonialism.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
"Us" is a weird way of phrasing it. And your idea that we should ally ourselves to the people creating the conflict and lend them our resources (edit: so that they may exploit these places in a more humane way) is crazy.
I really hope the UN doesn't twiddle its thumbs and actually does something. Lord knows the western world only steps in when money or political interests are involved.
When will the world put humanity before money and politics?
The UN seems like the only armed force in the world with good intentions, but gets wrapped in international politics that cuts its arms and legs off. I wish the UN had more power and abolished the bullshit security council.
The UN can't flex its muscles because its legal entities and peace keeping troops are hamstringed and made invalid by the policies of specific first world countries which also provides the majority of the funding for it. What do you want them to do when they can't hold the veto power states responsible for anything. When UNESCO recognized Palestine as a country the US / Canada / UK pulled their funding and vastly crippled the operations of the organization in actually providing valuable educational and health services around the world. Tens of thousands are affected by their operations on a daily basis and those individuals affected are holding UNESCO responsible for it. Look at the history of US Vetoes in the UN for the past 30,40 years, it's frankly disgusting.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism.
Well maybe we should move forward more independence and rights/ability for third world / developing countries to develop with out undue influence of the Western states instead of wishing for a return to colonialism.
Obviously that'd be awesome but it's hardly realistic. Those in power are utterly shameless. It was only a decade ago that Tony Blair shook the hand of Gaddafi and sold him a bunch of military hardware to use against his own people and if anyone deserved the ongoing emnity of the British state it was him. I guess BP's lobbyists must have had something pretty spectacular to offer him but still, the guy sponsored the IRA and was intimately involved in terrorism committed on British soil. When you have the Prime Minister posing for photos next to dictators then it's hard to believe we're about to give up on the whole scam.
On November 22 2012 19:30 mdb wrote: I wonder if the colonial powers will ever take responsibility for their actions in the past. Reading kwarks posts - I doubt it.
There's no longer any entity to take that responsibility, it's too large a burden for any one individual to shoulder and the organizations / individuals that represented colonial entities in the past are long gone. There isn't really any way to. The best way to take responsibility is to not repeat the mistakes of the past.
takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
If you have a computer you're probably indirectly complicit in the vast majority of the atrocities going on around the world. There's a reason the first world has so much money and it's not that we all just work harder than everyone else.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism.
Well maybe we should move forward more independence and rights/ability for third world / developing countries to develop with out undue influence of the Western states instead of wishing for a return to colonialism.
Obviously that'd be awesome but it's hardly realistic. Those in power are utterly shameless. It was only a decade ago that Tony Blair shook the hand of Gaddafi and sold him a bunch of military hardware to use against his own people and if anyone deserved the ongoing emnity of the British state it was him. I guess BP's lobbyists must have had something pretty spectacular to offer him but still, the guy sponsored the IRA and was intimately involved in terrorism committed on British soil. When you have the Prime Minister posing for photos next to dictators then it's hard to believe we're about to give up on the whole scam.
But the developed powers have moved past colonialism, as per the wage "slavery" example, it's better to rent a car anywhere in the world at the cheapest price when ever I need one than it is to take care of a car that I have personal stake in. Financial institutions are so embedded with in the economies of major powers that it almost necessitates this format of transfer / exploitation of wealth because the old models are simply not competitive any more. And ironically in most regions in the world too much freedom and awareness has been won by the indigenous population to ever accept the conditions of the past.
We all have horror stories about the corruptness of politics and the nature of state power, but it is true that great strides have been made and we shouldn't simply despair and give up. There was genuine progress in the Congo over the last decade, even though it wasn't reported upon. The mining of coltan, though the majority still illegal and funding western electronics firms, have since moved past militias forcing child labour to adults trying to make a living. It's a slow and arduous process to recovery, but the western world needs to be rid of this idea that the rest of the world needs them to rescue it from itself. Often times the people can sort out their own problems from the need of co-existence and the insertion of external interests only complicate an already difficult situation.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
Kwark is arriving at his conclusions by logic. Now, while that logic may be flawed and the conclusions are certainly absurd, to engage in that sort of critical thinking without presuppositions is a mark of intellectual bravery, and to be admired.
On November 22 2012 17:10 Tobberoth wrote: Should be noted that if it weren't for the imperialism of the past, Africa would probably not be in the.... questionable shape it is right now. Would it be a better place if the imperialism hadn't ended? Maybe. But that doesn't make imperialism a good idea, it probably got us where we are today, in terms of the instability.
actually the world united under one banner would make the world a far better place. If it requires imperialism to do it, then its ok.
On November 22 2012 17:10 Tobberoth wrote: Should be noted that if it weren't for the imperialism of the past, Africa would probably not be in the.... questionable shape it is right now. Would it be a better place if the imperialism hadn't ended? Maybe. But that doesn't make imperialism a good idea, it probably got us where we are today, in terms of the instability.
actually the world united under one banner would make the world a far better place. If it requires imperialism to do it, then its ok.
Imperialism explicitly implies subjugation, nothing about it says that the ruling party shares any interests with subordinate parties. It would be the exact same as now except more direct.
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.
Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule.
You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not.
I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands.
And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves.
Seriously? Take a step back and realize how far you went to justify imperialism. If we were talking about something that happened 60 years ago, not 100 you'd never use that kind of language.
I sort of understand your point, it would be better to act as benevolant dictators than let these places descend into chaos. I doubt that's even true: the moral cost is so high it would undermine democracy in the developed world. But even if it was better, it's not feasible. We're talking about about a country more than twice the population of Afghanistan and that's just the DRC itself, ignoring the wider region.
They didn't descend into chaos. It's still us doing it, it's just now a black hand wields the machete. The money ends up in the same place.
Kwark... the imperialist countries in the world aren't colonial any more, they don't build infrastructure, they don't contribute to developing local economy, they don't even provide basic health care and education through religious institutions. They are straight out parasitic, you can't find the British / Dutch colonial models in the world operating any more, people long since figured out that you don't need to have a physical presence in the population representation to efficiently control a region. Your point is pretty mute.
My point is that it was nicer when we were doing all those things rather than the parasitic sponsoring of wars we now do. As for classic imperialism, actually invading a country was what you did after imperialism failed, the situation you have at the moment in South Africa is pretty much ideal, textbook imperialism.
Well maybe we should move forward more independence and rights/ability for third world / developing countries to develop with out undue influence of the Western states instead of wishing for a return to colonialism.
Obviously that'd be awesome but it's hardly realistic. Those in power are utterly shameless. It was only a decade ago that Tony Blair shook the hand of Gaddafi and sold him a bunch of military hardware to use against his own people and if anyone deserved the ongoing emnity of the British state it was him. I guess BP's lobbyists must have had something pretty spectacular to offer him but still, the guy sponsored the IRA and was intimately involved in terrorism committed on British soil. When you have the Prime Minister posing for photos next to dictators then it's hard to believe we're about to give up on the whole scam.
But the developed powers have moved past colonialism, as per the wage "slavery" example, it's better to rent a car anywhere in the world at the cheapest price when ever I need one than it is to take care of a car that I have personal stake in. Financial institutions are so embedded with in the economies of major powers that it almost necessitates this format of transfer / exploitation of wealth because the old models are simply not competitive any more. And ironically in most regions in the world too much freedom and awareness has been won by the indigenous population to ever accept the conditions of the past.
We all have horror stories about the corruptness of politics and the nature of state power, but it is true that great strides have been made and we shouldn't simply despair and give up. There was genuine progress in the Congo over the last decade, even though it wasn't reported upon. The mining of coltan, though the majority still illegal and funding western electronics firms, have since moved past militias forcing child labour to adults trying to make a living. It's a slow and arduous process to recovery, but the western world needs to be rid of this idea that the rest of the world needs them to rescue it from itself. Often times the people can sort out their own problems from the need of co-existence and the insertion of external interests only complicate an already difficult situation.
Hear, hear.
True, many times government leaders and governments themselves act in a corrupt or amoral fashion, but that doesn't mean that we, as citizens, should simply throw up our hands and assume the best supervisory struture is the most cynical one.
On November 22 2012 17:10 Tobberoth wrote: Should be noted that if it weren't for the imperialism of the past, Africa would probably not be in the.... questionable shape it is right now. Would it be a better place if the imperialism hadn't ended? Maybe. But that doesn't make imperialism a good idea, it probably got us where we are today, in terms of the instability.
actually the world united under one banner would make the world a far better place. If it requires imperialism to do it, then its ok.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
Kwark is arriving at his conclusions by logic. Now, while that logic may be flawed and the conclusions are certainly absurd, to engage in that sort of critical thinking without presuppositions is a mark of intellectual bravery, and to be admired.
By no means do I think the colonial rule in the past was a good thing, I just think it was simpler and more honest than the current system. Had it continued the locals would at least hate Europeans rather than each other.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
Kwark is arriving at his conclusions by logic. Now, while that logic may be flawed and the conclusions are certainly absurd, to engage in that sort of critical thinking without presuppositions is a mark of intellectual bravery, and to be admired.
By no means do I think the colonial rule in the past was a good thing, I just think it was simpler and more honest than the current system. Had it continued the locals would at least hate Europeans rather than each other.
It's not that it was a more "honest" system, it's the fact that the awareness and educational degree of the masses has increased drastically. It would be equally fraudulent to claim that theocracies were "honest" in their subjugation. All of these control systems made every attempt to lie and deceit the subjugated party. The population just eventually outgrew it so more complicated formats of control are necessitated.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
Kwark is arriving at his conclusions by logic. Now, while that logic may be flawed and the conclusions are certainly absurd, to engage in that sort of critical thinking without presuppositions is a mark of intellectual bravery, and to be admired.
By no means do I think the colonial rule in the past was a good thing, I just think it was simpler and more honest than the current system. Had it continued the locals would at least hate Europeans rather than each other.
I agree here. We should try to aim for a system where locals can use their natural endowments for economic activity without hating their trading partners, though.
Independence from colonial powers seemed like a coin flip from what I saw. In most scenarios, things for the independent nation initially goes bad but it gets better, but not utopian. America, India, China, Ghana, and Singapore seem to be examples. I remember Milton Friedman advocating British colonialism for India because they had a dysfunctional government with lots of war and assassinations but now they are doing better than they would have under British rule in my opinion.
And then we have Congo, Haiti, Angola, and many other African nations who obtained independence, but they are in an even worse mess. I do not mean to be a typical biased anti-imperialist leftist from Russia Today, but forcing civilization next to malaria did take a major toll on the population and still does to this day..
On November 22 2012 19:53 Shiragaku wrote: Independence from colonial powers seemed like a coin flip from what I saw. In most scenarios, things for the independent nation initially goes bad but it gets better, but not utopian. America, India, China, Ghana, and Singapore seem to be examples. I remember Milton Friedman advocating British colonialism for India because they had a dysfunctional government with lots of war and assassinations but now they are doing better than they would have under British rule.
And then we have Congo, Haiti, Angola, and many other African nations who obtained independence, but they are in an even worse mess. I do not mean to be a typical biased anti-imperialist leftist from Russia Today, but forcing civilization next to malaria did take a major toll on the population and still does to this day..
It just takes a while, and for ANY country to develop, not simply exclusive to the case of coming out of a colonial system. It needs to operate with out the undue influence and economical stranglehold of developed countries. Almost every case of modern post 20th century failures particular to colonialism has undue influence from the world bank / IMF with utterly impossible to sustain development plans. You can find individual success stories in every part of the world coming out of the most depressing and torn conditions, post WWII Japan / Germany, Taiwan, Brazil, Venezuela, South Korea (not simply referring to post Korean war, but also post subsidiary state to China), etc etc. You can find an example for every ethnic, religious, and even geopolitical system that's statistically relevant.
I recall an economics paper detailing potential effects of imperialism on various countries. Turned out that countries that had rulers primarily interested in colonization had better post-independence GDP growth than countries that had rulers primarily interested in resource extraction. Or something like that, I can't find the paper and the details are fuzzy.
What is true is that the institutions and norms required to, say, create a healthy environment for future cities are radically different from institutions and norms required to extract as much ivory as possible from neighboring tribes. For example, one method of ivory extraction was to carve up a territory consisting of multiple feuding tribes, and hand guns to tribes in exchange for ivory.
Not the best way to create stable nation-states. Good way to get ivory, though.
On November 22 2012 20:04 acker wrote: I recall an economics paper detailing potential effects of imperialism on various countries. Turned out that countries that had rulers primarily interested in colonization had better post-independence GDP growth than countries that had rulers primarily interested in resource extraction. Or something like that, I can't find the paper and the details are fuzzy.
What is true is that the institutions and norms required to, say, create a healthy environment for future cities are radically different from institutions and norms required to extract as much ivory as possible from neighboring tribes. For example, a common method of ivory extraction was to carve up a territory consisting of multiple feuding tribes, and hand guns to tribes in exchange for ivory.
Not the best way to create stable nation-states. Good way to get ivory, though.
Good way to get minerals for computer chips and electronics equipment too. The notion that we might all be using blood stained electronics is just disturbing.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
Don't read so much Russia Today. It fries your brain and makes you say stupid things.
lol im actually subbed to them on youtube and all I see is how America is such a bad place. I mean, it does kinda suck to live here but if you have money, its really not that bad. I dont have money so I hate it, but I cant really do anything about it. Its not that bad once you get used to it anyway.
On November 22 2012 17:10 Tobberoth wrote: Should be noted that if it weren't for the imperialism of the past, Africa would probably not be in the.... questionable shape it is right now. Would it be a better place if the imperialism hadn't ended? Maybe. But that doesn't make imperialism a good idea, it probably got us where we are today, in terms of the instability.
actually the world united under one banner would make the world a far better place. If it requires imperialism to do it, then its ok.
As a British person I think it is important that we realise and admit how badly we fucked over Africa. We criticise other countries for doing it now, so we should not pretend we did not do it in the past.
On November 22 2012 17:10 Tobberoth wrote: Should be noted that if it weren't for the imperialism of the past, Africa would probably not be in the.... questionable shape it is right now. Would it be a better place if the imperialism hadn't ended? Maybe. But that doesn't make imperialism a good idea, it probably got us where we are today, in terms of the instability.
actually the world united under one banner would make the world a far better place. If it requires imperialism to do it, then its ok.
As a British person I think it is important that we realise and admit how badly we fucked over Africa. We criticise other countries for doing it now, so we should not pretend we did not do it in the past.
Or pretend that we aren't still doing it now. It was just months ago that British investors safeguarding British interests arranged for South African armed police to gun down miners striking over poor pay. The profits from that are spent in London and taxed in London, the dividends of the company go to British people. We're still entirely complicit.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
Don't read so much Russia Today. It fries your brain and makes you say stupid things.
lol im actually subbed to them on youtube and all I see is how America is such a bad place. I mean, it does kinda suck to live here but if you have money, its really not that bad. I dont have money so I hate it, but I cant really do anything about it. Its not that bad once you get used to it anyway.
But you have running water, you have electricity, you have a computer, you have clothes, and you have freedom of speech. The worse you will get in terms of repression is either debt or possible beating at an Occupy protest.
Though Russia Today favors many of my views such as anti-imperialism and anti-NATO, they present their material in a way that would make FOX News blush. They complain about Israeli atrocities while turning a blind eye to their atrocities in Chechnya. Most people, even poor people should have nothing but contempt for that channel unless you want some eye candy.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
Kwark is arriving at his conclusions by logic. Now, while that logic may be flawed and the conclusions are certainly absurd, to engage in that sort of critical thinking without presuppositions is a mark of intellectual bravery, and to be admired.
You can't arrive to conclusions by logic if you're logic is flawed, hence, it's not critical thinking, no matter if you intended it to be. Or where you being sacastic?
On November 22 2012 20:42 Slaughter wrote: Oh Africa. If only Europe hadn't fucked you up so much back in the day
Not europe's fault at all. They had war with eachother way before we came to africa. This didn't begin there. As long there are people, there is war...
On November 22 2012 20:42 Slaughter wrote: Oh Africa. If only Europe hadn't fucked you up so much back in the day
Not europe's fault at all. They had war with eachother way before we came to africa. This didn't begin there. As long there are people, there is war...
Colonialism really fucked up the continent. Its pretty underrated in the popular thought but its true. I am not blaming Europe specifically, basically all powers would of done similar things.
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.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
Kwark is arriving at his conclusions by logic. Now, while that logic may be flawed and the conclusions are certainly absurd, to engage in that sort of critical thinking without presuppositions is a mark of intellectual bravery, and to be admired.
Logic is overrated. It's only really good at creating true statements from true statements. Once you introduce anything slightly inacurate into your premises you can prove anything using logic. Since absolutely true statements about the real world are hard to come by using only logic often leads to patently absurd conclusions.
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.
Are you playing devil's advocate? This is an incredibly cynical view, and a justification for genocide if I ever saw one. I get where you're coming from, but this kind of bluntness is just depressing.
As an aside, what particular event are you referring to for the Roman ethnic cleansing? Their modus operandi as far as I know consisted of establishing puppet states which converted by themselves to the Roman civilization. Of course, up until the time they made everyone a Roman citizen, the rest of the population had basically no rights, but still... Perhaps I'm missing something.
In any case, there seems to be an awful lot of ethnic conflicts in Africa (and partly the Middle East), due to the fact most of the countries' borders make no geographical sense. Compare the amount of straight lines in Europe and those regions. Of course, corporate interests are also a factor, but how can a country be stable if the guy in charge sees his tribe or family's interests above that of his country's?
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.
Except the Native Americans never were able to recover, while Africa was able to eventually retain the rights to their land. Colonialism set back the continent many many years. Sure they had advanced growth due to the times but its not organic. Its forced due to outside influence. They basically haven't had time to develop for hundreds of years.
Belgium never should have left Congo in the state it was after the brutality of the colonisation had gone to light. Many of the issues today in Congo stern from the atrocious treatment during the time Belgium had control. It's also saddening how in history class that particular dark aspect of Belgium's history is barely ever talked about.
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.
Are you playing devil's advocate? This is an incredibly cynical view, and a justification for genocide if I ever saw one. I get where you're coming from, but this kind of bluntness is just depressing.
As an aside, what particular event are you referring to for the Roman ethnic cleansing? Their modus operandi as far as I know consisted of establishing puppet states which converted by themselves to the Roman civilization. Of course, up until the time they made everyone a Roman citizen, the rest of the population had basically no rights, but still... Perhaps I'm missing something.
In any case, there seems to be an awful lot of ethnic conflicts in Africa (and partly the Middle East), due to the fact most of the countries' borders make no geographical sense. Compare the amount of straight lines in Europe and those regions. Of course, corporate interests are also a factor, but how can a country be stable if the guy in charge sees his tribe or family's interests above that of his country's?
We're off topic here but, for a start, the entire citizen population of Carthage. Countless Gallic tribes too, literally millions died or were enslaved in Caesars wars. Then there's the Dacians, wiped out by Trajan.
Damn, not even I would say sub-Saharan Africa was beyond help.
There are certainly countries that have huge problems, but there are places where you see a brighter future like Nigeria. Corruption, yes. Organized crime, yes. Sectarian conflict, yes. But they have a quickly growing economy. They might be able to come through it. What I am saying here is that it is probably best not to lump all of Africa below the Sahara in to the same category. All quite bad... yeah, but some are better than others.
I would like to point out though that Africa was a terrible place before colonialization. It is still terrible after. Hard to blame everything on colonialization when sub-Saharan Africa didn't have much to show for itself before the Europeans showed up.
Congo is just a giant mess. I hope they get a stable government... at some point.
I really hope the UN doesn't twiddle its thumbs and actually does something. Lord knows the western world only steps in when money or political interests are involved.
When will the world put humanity before money and politics?
The UN seems like the only armed force in the world with good intentions, but gets wrapped in international politics that cuts its arms and legs off. I wish the UN had more power and abolished the bullshit security council.
The UN can't flex its muscles because its legal entities and peace keeping troops are hamstringed and made invalid by the policies of specific first world countries which also provides the majority of the funding for it. What do you want them to do when they can't hold the veto power states responsible for anything. When UNESCO recognized Palestine as a country the US / Canada / UK pulled their funding and vastly crippled the operations of the organization in actually providing valuable educational and health services around the world. Tens of thousands are affected by their operations on a daily basis and those individuals affected are holding UNESCO responsible for it. Look at the history of US Vetoes in the UN for the past 30,40 years, it's frankly disgusting.
Exactly. The dream people once had for the UN is mostly dead. As a canadian expat, i lost all faith in canadian foreign policy when that happened.
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.
Except the Native Americans never were able to recover, while Africa was able to eventually retain the rights to their land. Colonialism set back the continent many many years. Sure they had advanced growth due to the times but its not organic. Its forced due to outside influence. They basically haven't had time to develop for hundreds of years.
I wouldn't say colonialism set the continent back because they would still be in the stone age if Europeans hadn't gone over there. I'm not saying it was the best way to try and bring them up to speed with the modern world and it did screw them over pretty badly but it wasn't all bad.
On November 22 2012 21:51 Romantic wrote: Damn, not even I would say sub-Saharan Africa was beyond help.
There are certainly countries that have huge problems, but there are places where you see a brighter future like Nigeria. Corruption, yes. Organized crime, yes. Sectarian conflict, yes. But they have a quickly growing economy. They might be able to come through it. What I am saying here is that it is probably best not to lump all of Africa below the Sahara in to the same category. All quite bad... yeah, but some are better than others.
I would like to point out though that Africa was a terrible place before colonialization. It is still terrible after. Hard to blame everything on colonialization when sub-Saharan Africa didn't have much to show for itself before the Europeans showed up.
Congo is just a giant mess. I hope they get a stable government... at some point.
You're right, Africa is the fastest growing continent in the world at the moment and countries like Botswana, South Africa, Angola and Nigeria are showing the way forward. If the DRC, Zimbabwe and Somalia ever sort themselves out then the continent has a relatively bright future.
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.
That sounds an awful lot like our ancestors who were going to try and 'civilise' the place. And look what it has done. Sorry, but that statement you've made sounds a lot like one that has led to repeated mistakes althroughout history. I'd think abit more before posting stuff like that. Back when Belgium had a pretty big claim on Congo, the land itself didnt get much richer. The rich get richer, and the poor just stay poor if you apply what you just said.
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.
Very unfortunate as Congo could become a modern economic superpower as it is abundant in natural resources, it seems as it's neighbors and other countries are determined to delay this as long as possible, especially Uganda as wounded and killed rebels have been found wearing said country's uniforms.
I'm surprised France hasn't had enough and just decided pull a Ivory Coast type of operation.
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 last 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.
Granted most problems of today are caused by African people onto themselves but it was the Europeans who fostered the initial culture of theft, murder, looting and crime in Africa. Afterall this all started when Europeans offered the first guns to Africa for slaves, which led to a very sad comment by the then King of the Empire of Kongo:
1526 Afonso wrote two letters concerning the slave trade to the king of Portugal, complaining of Portuguese complicity in purchasing illegally enslaved people.
In one of his letters he writes
"Each day the traders are kidnapping our people - children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family.This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated. We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass. It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves."
Many of our subjects eagerly lust after Portuguese merchandise that your subjects have brought into our domains. To satisfy this inordinate appetite, they seize many of our black free subjects.... They sell them. After having taken these prisoners [to the coast] secretly or at night..... As soon as the captives are in the hands of white men they are branded with a red-hot iron.
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"
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.
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 last 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.
Granted most problems of today are caused by African people onto themselves but it was the Europeans who fostered the initial culture of theft, murder, looting and crime in Africa. Afterall this all started when Europeans offered the first guns to Africa for slaves, which led to a very sad comment by the then King of the Empire of Kongo:
1526 Afonso wrote two letters concerning the slave trade to the king of Portugal, complaining of Portuguese complicity in purchasing illegally enslaved people.
In one of his letters he writes
"Each day the traders are kidnapping our people - children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family.This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated. We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass. It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves."
Many of our subjects eagerly lust after Portuguese merchandise that your subjects have brought into our domains. To satisfy this inordinate appetite, they seize many of our black free subjects.... They sell them. After having taken these prisoners [to the coast] secretly or at night..... As soon as the captives are in the hands of white men they are branded with a red-hot iron.
The Arabs started the African slave trade long before the Europeans did, it wasn't us that introduced Africa to these things. (not that they needed introducing to them because it was a continent of violent, tribal societies)
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.
European colonialism isn't even in the top 5 of the worst crimes in human history.
A large portion of what Africa is going through is because of European colonialism.
Actually a large portion of what Africa is going through is because the Europeans left. Just like Muslim colonialism brought more advanced culture and a higher standard of living and an end to tribal warfare in the areas it penetrated, and the gains started to slide when the Muslim states started to decline. Europeans did the same thing, they left, the standard of living stops advancing and tribal warfare returns.
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.
You can look at the numbers and African population had been stagnant for over a hundred years before colonialism and remained stagnant for the first 50-70 years of colonialism, started to rise after WW1, and really took off after WW2. The "black race" was not "well on the way to [sic] being wiped out by the Europeans." And neither were the natives of North America and Australia "wiped out."
The historical ignorance in this thread - born of our terrible education system that places PC ideology over actual facts - is atrocious.
Granted most problems of today are caused by African people onto themselves but it was the Europeans who fostered the initial culture of theft, murder, looting and crime in Africa. Afterall this all started when Europeans offered the first guns to Africa for slaves, which led to a very sad comment by the then King of the Empire of Kongo:
Exactly what I'm talking about. The Africans "fostered" a "culture" of theft, murder, looting and crime in Africa because those things are universal among all human cultures. Slavery existed in Africa thousands of years before "Europe" was anything more than a collection of Celtic tribes trading with the Greeks. The various ancient Egyptian empires were, to varying degrees, built on the backs of slaves captured from Nubia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and the Arabian peninsula.
If all you know about history is what your "Introduction to Why Whites Are the Devil" class taught you, you have been taught a story that is so simplistic as to be useless.
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.
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.
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 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 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 20:42 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
UN and other countries helping "losing" side creates more problems in long run as winners want to get justice eventually. Even gives more hatred as they didn't get help from outside rich countries and killing continues.
On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
Actually, if we didn't provide the financial incentive for warlords to squabble over minerals, and if we stopped selling them weapons, there would be a lot less casualties.
But way too many people are making too much money from the situation for that to happen.
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 :\
A solution is to send military peacekeeping forces, not to invade and recapture the whole region and strip them of the resources.
On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
Actually, if we didn't provide the financial incentive for warlords to squabble over minerals, and if we stopped selling them weapons, there would be a lot less casualties.
But way too many people are making too much money from the situation for that to happen.
Unfortunately it would also destroy what economy they have and would mean all phones/computers etc. would be more expensive for us.
On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
Actually, if we didn't provide the financial incentive for warlords to squabble over minerals, and if we stopped selling them weapons, there would be a lot less casualties.
But way too many people are making too much money from the situation for that to happen.
Unfortunately it would also destroy what economy they have and would mean all phones/computers etc. would be more expensive for us.
I dont think he realizes just how much these countires depend on food import...
Anyway, anyone know why they are fighting?
Edit: Nvm, read up, to bring glorious socialism on for benefit of great africa.
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 :\
A solution is to send military peacekeeping forces, not to invade and recapture the whole region and strip them of the resources.
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. The only thing that has changed is now we can wring our hands and tell ourselves how terrible it is while sleeping very well at night.
On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
UN and other countries helping "losing" side creates more problems in long run as winners want to get justice eventually. Even gives more hatred as they didn't get help from outside rich countries and killing continues.
You ignore that China and western countries are in Africa precisely becuase there are resources there that those countries want. No country will willingly forgoe influence for no reason.
On November 23 2012 01:56 Cheerio wrote: A solution is to send military peacekeeping forces, not to invade and recapture the whole region and strip them of the resources.
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.
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. The only thing that has changed is now we can wring our hands and tell ourselves how terrible it is while sleeping very well at night.
Yeah, but your proposed solution is to regress back rather than move forward. Even back in the days of absolute imperialism, I'm sure people slept well. There's always plenty of rationalizations.
The answer is truth. Share it, brotha. But don't get twisted by it.
On November 22 2012 15:52 Shady Sands wrote: The UN is going into full obs mode, and analysts speculate that M23 is likely supplied by Rwanda, Uganda, or another 3rd party, since the rebel group has equipment like night vision goggles and 120mm Israeli-made mortars, and better small arms than the Congolese army.
We payed for those weapons indirectly. Militias mine Coltan and sell it, it ends up in our computers etc. Most people dont know, and its not like theres a "fair trade" sign for computers. Should be tho, seeing as 13 % of it is produced by bloodshed.
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.
On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
Actually, if we didn't provide the financial incentive for warlords to squabble over minerals, and if we stopped selling them weapons, there would be a lot less casualties.
But way too many people are making too much money from the situation for that to happen.
Unfortunately it would also destroy what economy they have and would mean all phones/computers etc. would be more expensive for us.
I dont think he realizes just how much these countires depend on food import...
Anyway, anyone know why they are fighting?
Edit: Nvm, read up, to bring glorious socialism on for benefit of great africa.
dont bullshit yourself dude. In the end they fight because they want to control the mines which would make them filthy rich because our modern world depends on those mines.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
Kwark is arriving at his conclusions by logic. Now, while that logic may be flawed and the conclusions are certainly absurd, to engage in that sort of critical thinking without presuppositions is a mark of intellectual bravery, and to be admired.
By no means do I think the colonial rule in the past was a good thing, I just think it was simpler and more honest than the current system. Had it continued the locals would at least hate Europeans rather than each other.
On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.
Actually, if we didn't provide the financial incentive for warlords to squabble over minerals, and if we stopped selling them weapons, there would be a lot less casualties.
But way too many people are making too much money from the situation for that to happen.
Unfortunately it would also destroy what economy they have and would mean all phones/computers etc. would be more expensive for us.
I dont think he realizes just how much these countires depend on food import...
Anyway, anyone know why they are fighting?
Edit: Nvm, read up, to bring glorious socialism on for benefit of great africa.
dont bullshit yourself dude. In the end they fight because they want to control the mines which would make them filthy rich because our modern world depends on those mines.
Like many present day African military groups, there seems to be no clear ideology. The RUF, Interhamwe, M23, and the NPP do not seem to advocating communism, anti-colonialism, fascism, Christian or Islamic theocracy (LRA is the exception.) Most of these groups seem to be anti-government until they get into power.
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.
I didn´t know America was a country!. I must have been living in a lie all my life then .
Man this is really sad. That country is so beautiful with the congo basin/rainforest. Unfortunately, these people with "power" have no interest in working together. They want to out do eachother ...
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?
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?
Because unlike what people like to tell themselves, that this weapon trade is some giant organized scheme that is manipulated by the western world, it is in reality a criminal enterprise run by criminals who are invested in trading weapons, for the sole reason that it provides them with obsene wealth.
The weapon trade can't be turned on or off any easier than the drug trade, and just like there are criminals that can provide enough cocaine to get a small nation high, there are also criminals that can provide entire rebel armies with everything they might need to overthrow a government.
It's easier to think it's the evil CIA, like it's all controlled and that somewhere there is someone that is in control, but the truth is that nobody is in control of the whole thing.
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.
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.
Man, this kind of noblesse-obligue attitude is what gets real tiring for me.
Powerful and rich countries go to these places to stay rich and powerful. That's how they got rich and powerful in the first place, if history is of any judge.
I am not informed about the conflict. Can anybody tell me about the different fractions, the motives behind the conflict? And what is our horse in this conflict, or do we profit whatever happens?
On November 22 2012 15:52 Shady Sands wrote: For reference, the last Congolese Civil War, lasted five years, involved eight African nations, and killed over five million people.
It should be noted that while M23 is a relatively new group, the Kivu Conflict has been ongoing since 2004. And, reading about this, I'm not sure that the DRC is in any worse shape now than it was when I went to the model AU at Howard and we discussed the conflict on the Exectuve Council.
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. The only thing that has changed is now we can wring our hands and tell ourselves how terrible it is while sleeping very well at night.
Haha. I will say this, Kwark. You are definitely an equal opportunity offender with your bluntness. I can't fault you here.
On November 23 2012 10:00 Dekoth wrote: 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.
Attitudes like yours make it more likely.
If the best people can expect from peaceful political competition is the people on the other side saying 'oh you're just a monkey rattling your cage because your idiot lost and you're best ignored,' violence begins to look more and more attractive. Just remember that no one will want to talk to you when you talk to them like that. They'll want to smack you in the mouth. Keep that up for a few decades and you'll be repeating what happened from 1820-1860.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
Yeah... I doubt you or "the world" would be very happy with the result, that being the conservative/libertarian side (we have all the guns + the military is dominated by conservatives + so are most police forces) curbstomping the liberal/progressive side. Think before you snide please.
So sad that the Kivu is getting fucked up again. Looked really promising earlier this year in the region. Roads were getting paved and stuff like that. But honestly the M23 could be okay (doubt that strongly) if they manage to take Congo and run it like Rwanda is run. Rwanda is like the least corrupt country in Africa. Sure no freedom of press and stuff like that but corruption is really one of the things that drag Africa down right now.
But I think it'll be like always, lots of people get killed for no gain at all and if the new guys get into power there will be no change, just others robbing the country blind.
EDIT: Check out the houses in Goma in google earth. Some realy nice places they got. I wonder how they were financed.
Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.
For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.
In my opinion, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity, even if there often appears no limit to their lack of empathy and desire to destroy.
For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.
On November 23 2012 11:10 sevencck wrote: Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.
For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.
For me, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity.
For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.
You don't need modern weaponry to kill huge amounts of people or terrorize a region. Most of the 800,000 genocide victims in Rwanda were slaughtered by machetes. The Romans didn't need missiles to raze Carthage, the Mongols didn't need tanks to rape Baghdad, the Huns didn't need vehicles and machine guns - just horses and bows and arrows and javelins and swords - to mow down over ten million people.
Also what fruits of postmodern consciousness, postmodernism has proved itself the death of rational thought.
On November 23 2012 11:10 sevencck wrote: Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.
For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.
For me, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity.
For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.
You don't need modern weaponry to kill huge amounts of people or terrorize a region. Most of the 800,000 genocide victims in Rwanda were slaughtered by machetes.
Also what fruits of postmodern consciousness, postmodernism has proved itself the death of rational thought.
You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons. How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.
And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds. One of the fruits of postmodern consciousness is greater cultural awareness and understanding. It's obvious this isn't a major part of daily life in these areas of Africa.
On November 23 2012 11:10 sevencck wrote: Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.
For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.
For me, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity.
For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.
You don't need modern weaponry to kill huge amounts of people or terrorize a region. Most of the 800,000 genocide victims in Rwanda were slaughtered by machetes.
Also what fruits of postmodern consciousness, postmodernism has proved itself the death of rational thought.
You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons. How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.
And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds.
I agree with your point of advanced weaponry. I see that as an important reason for nowaday's peace in Europe.
Disagree strongly with the other point you made. In mankind's history in 99% of the cases, it were always the technologically more advanced/educated countries that imposed their will on others via the means of violence. This did not really change. Today's powers tend to use proxies though.
And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds.
Almost everyone who does not self-identify as a postmodernist would strongly disagree.
You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons.
Again, the historical record does not bear this out.
How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.
I don't think the standards of rational consciousness are what you think they are.
One of the fruits of postmodern consciousness is greater cultural awareness and understanding. It's obvious this isn't a major part of daily life in these areas of Africa.
I'm sorry but cultural awareness and understanding existed long, long, long before postmodernism. Cultural acceptance as well. Postmodern theorists are not exactly the most culturally accepting group of people around either.
On November 23 2012 11:10 sevencck wrote: Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.
For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.
For me, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity.
For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.
You don't need modern weaponry to kill huge amounts of people or terrorize a region. Most of the 800,000 genocide victims in Rwanda were slaughtered by machetes.
Also what fruits of postmodern consciousness, postmodernism has proved itself the death of rational thought.
You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons. How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.
And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds.
I agree with your point of advanced weaponry. I see that as an important reason for nowaday's peace in Europe.
Disagree strongly with the other point you made. In mankind's history in 99% of the cases, it were always the technologically more advanced/educated countries that imposed their will on others via the means of violence. This did not really change. Today's powers tend to use proxies though.
I kind of disagree with this assessment to be honest. As bloody as the late 19th (American civil war) and 20th centuries were, they really showed a great deal of development of restraint. I think one of the historically valuable lessons of the last 100 years was exactly that our capacity for understanding and restraint must evolve along with our capacity to destroy otherwise we're really in trouble. This really is an expression of rational consciousness, and isn't a lesson that is even remotely understood in some of these areas in Africa.
That a society can be at a rational level of development sufficient for industry doesn't preclude the possibility of pockets of stupidity. I'd argue World War 2 showed an increased level of understanding and restraint compared to World War 1. Chamberlain's reputation really demonstrates this fact. Most of Europe really wished to avoid war at all costs, so did the U.S.A., it's not like these were industrial societies beating the drums of war.
World War 2 just proves my point. When prerational consciousness (Hitler and his Nazis, sorry don't mean to put the blame squarely on Germany, I understand the implications of the treaty of Versailles etc. just making a simple point here) gain access to the weapons that are developed by rational consciousness look at the problems it causes. People like that who lack the empathy of higher levels of consciousness generally lack of weapons developed by higher levels of consciousness by virtue of their lack of higher levels of consciousness. When they obtain them, it's really a disaster.
You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons.
Again, the historical record does not bear this out.
Actually, it really does. I don't know if you've spent any amount of time studying military history, but to put it in a nutshell of a post, military supply is a massive problem. Pre industrial or agrarian societies have always had great difficulty feeding armies and moving supplies. They have difficulties equipping armies. The armies they equip lack the destructive capacity of industrial societies. There really is a limit to their destructive capacity. Their weapons can't deforest large areas, annihilate large animal populations, pollute water supplies, or kill other combatants nearly to the same extent. Defense often has an edge in pre industrial warfare, but that changed massively following WW1. In short, yes, pre industrial societies can destroy, but not nearly to the same extent, not nearly. The historical record absolutely bears this out.
I'm sorry but cultural awareness and understanding existed long, long, long before postmodernism. Cultural acceptance as well. Postmodern theorists are not exactly the most culturally accepting group of people around either.
On November 23 2012 11:10 sevencck wrote: Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.
For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.
For me, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity.
For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.
You don't need modern weaponry to kill huge amounts of people or terrorize a region. Most of the 800,000 genocide victims in Rwanda were slaughtered by machetes.
Also what fruits of postmodern consciousness, postmodernism has proved itself the death of rational thought.
You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons. How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.
And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds.
I agree with your point of advanced weaponry. I see that as an important reason for nowaday's peace in Europe.
Disagree strongly with the other point you made. In mankind's history in 99% of the cases, it were always the technologically more advanced/educated countries that imposed their will on others via the means of violence. This did not really change. Today's powers tend to use proxies though.
I kind of disagree with this assessment to be honest. As bloody as the late 19th (American civil war) and 20th centuries were, they really showed a great deal of development of restraint. I think one of the historically valuable lessons of the last 100 years was exactly that our capacity for understanding and restraint must evolve along with our capacity to destroy otherwise we're really in trouble. This really is an expression of rational consciousness, and isn't a lesson that is even remotely understood in some of these areas in Africa.
That a society can be at a rational level of development sufficient for industry doesn't preclude the possibility of pockets of stupidity. I'd argue World War 2 showed an increased level of understanding and restraint compared to World War 1. Chamberlain's reputation really demonstrates this fact. Most of Europe really wished to avoid war at all costs, so did the U.S.A., it's not like these were industrial societies beating the drums of war.
World War 2 just proves my point. When prerational consciousness (Hitler and his Nazis, sorry don't mean to put the blame squarely on Germany, I understand the implications of the treaty of Versailles etc. just making a simple point here) gain access to the weapons that are developed by rational consciousness look at the problems it causes. People like that who lack the empathy of higher levels of consciousness generally lack of weapons developed by higher levels of consciousness by virtue of their lack of higher levels of consciousness. When they obtain them, it's really a disaster.
Well, I still disagree Regarding the 20th century: First big conflict was WWI. No restraint, weapons of mass destruction were used. WWII weapons of mass destruction were used by the party who was on the way of winning either way. They were used in order to save own ressources. Wars between China and Japan were ridiculously brutal,too. In the 50's France fought colonial wars in Africa. Mass executions and all the nasty stuff included.
Since then the US alone was involved in many armed conflicts, don't want to count them through, but many. Additionally we have the most advanced nations propping up dictators here and there, depending on national interest (that's why I mentioned proxies in the former post). Current example. The west and turkey backing Syrian rebels and Iran and Russia supporting Assad in a civil war fought without gloves. Lybia was the same situation. I don't think that moral is of any importance in politics and power. Everyone of the national leaders of the most advanced nations went through Macchiavelli (or some aquivalent based on cultural context).
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
On November 23 2012 11:10 sevencck wrote: Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.
For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.
For me, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity.
For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.
You don't need modern weaponry to kill huge amounts of people or terrorize a region. Most of the 800,000 genocide victims in Rwanda were slaughtered by machetes.
Also what fruits of postmodern consciousness, postmodernism has proved itself the death of rational thought.
You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons. How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.
And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds.
I agree with your point of advanced weaponry. I see that as an important reason for nowaday's peace in Europe.
Disagree strongly with the other point you made. In mankind's history in 99% of the cases, it were always the technologically more advanced/educated countries that imposed their will on others via the means of violence. This did not really change. Today's powers tend to use proxies though.
I kind of disagree with this assessment to be honest. As bloody as the late 19th (American civil war) and 20th centuries were, they really showed a great deal of development of restraint. I think one of the historically valuable lessons of the last 100 years was exactly that our capacity for understanding and restraint must evolve along with our capacity to destroy otherwise we're really in trouble. This really is an expression of rational consciousness, and isn't a lesson that is even remotely understood in some of these areas in Africa.
That a society can be at a rational level of development sufficient for industry doesn't preclude the possibility of pockets of stupidity. I'd argue World War 2 showed an increased level of understanding and restraint compared to World War 1. Chamberlain's reputation really demonstrates this fact. Most of Europe really wished to avoid war at all costs, so did the U.S.A., it's not like these were industrial societies beating the drums of war.
World War 2 just proves my point. When prerational consciousness (Hitler and his Nazis, sorry don't mean to put the blame squarely on Germany, I understand the implications of the treaty of Versailles etc. just making a simple point here) gain access to the weapons that are developed by rational consciousness look at the problems it causes. People like that who lack the empathy of higher levels of consciousness generally lack of weapons developed by higher levels of consciousness by virtue of their lack of higher levels of consciousness. When they obtain them, it's really a disaster.
Well, I still disagree Regarding the 20th century: First big conflict was WWI. No restraint, weapons of mass destruction were used. WWII weapons of mass destruction were used by the party who was on the way of winning either way. They were used in order to save own ressources. Wars between China and Japan were ridiculously brutal,too. In the 50's France fought colonial wars in Africa. Mass executions and all the nasty stuff included.
Since then the US alone was involved in many armed conflicts, don't want to count them through, but many. Additionally we have the most advanced nations propping up dictators here and there, depending on national interest (that's why I mentioned proxies in the former post). Current example. The west and turkey backing Syrian rebels and Iran and Russia supporting Assad in a civil war fought without gloves. Lybia was the same situation. I don't think that moral is of any importance in politics and power. Everyone of the national leaders of the most advanced nations went through Macchiavelli (or some aquivalent based on cultural context).
I don't disagree with what you're saying, I think I'm just looking at it a little bit differently. The development of weapons and the development of understanding, empathy, and restraint are a gradual process. They are connected by the development of consciousness, and it's kind of a slow unfolding process. Like I said, the fact that a society is emerging rational consciousness sufficient for industrial production doesn't mean the majority of the society is at a rational level. You're right about World War 1 but I feel like it kinda proves my point as well. It was a bit of a sobering wake up call for the Western World. The majority of people in power weren't particularly rational, though they had the fruits of science and industrial production at their fingertips. And it was a huge disaster. The remainder of the 20th century for me really has been a race between industrialization and restraint, with both forces neck and neck. My point is simply this. If you give a largely irrational society with no restraint the fruits of advanced industrialization, it's not going to end well.
From what I see and hear about Africa, the continent's an absolute mess. Egypt has its pyramids (and some wicked-awesome geology) and South Africa doesn't sound too hostile, but besides that, the whole continent looks like one giant cluster of mayhem to me. Which is unfortunate because Africa is likely loaded with natural resources. I can vouch for the Congo in particular; from what I've heard, they've got rich copper deposits.
On November 23 2012 10:00 Dekoth wrote: 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.
Attitudes like yours make it more likely.
If the best people can expect from peaceful political competition is the people on the other side saying 'oh you're just a monkey rattling your cage because your idiot lost and you're best ignored,' violence begins to look more and more attractive. Just remember that no one will want to talk to you when you talk to them like that. They'll want to smack you in the mouth. Keep that up for a few decades and you'll be repeating what happened from 1820-1860.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
Yeah... I doubt you or "the world" would be very happy with the result, that being the conservative/libertarian side (we have all the guns + the military is dominated by conservatives + so are most police forces) curbstomping the liberal/progressive side. Think before you snide please.
What a comedic post. Think about what you're saying, it's incredibly stupid.
If the outside world ceased to influence African politics in any significant way (I don't know the specifics, I hardly ever read or hear anything about Africa outside of the usual "genocide everywhere" and "colonialism did this" bits), does anyone have a good guess as to what would happen over the next 20 - 30 some years?
On November 23 2012 10:00 Dekoth wrote: 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.
Attitudes like yours make it more likely.
If the best people can expect from peaceful political competition is the people on the other side saying 'oh you're just a monkey rattling your cage because your idiot lost and you're best ignored,' violence begins to look more and more attractive. Just remember that no one will want to talk to you when you talk to them like that. They'll want to smack you in the mouth. Keep that up for a few decades and you'll be repeating what happened from 1820-1860.
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.
Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans.
Yeah... I doubt you or "the world" would be very happy with the result, that being the conservative/libertarian side (we have all the guns + the military is dominated by conservatives + so are most police forces) curbstomping the liberal/progressive side. Think before you snide please.
I was referring to the idiots starting the secede from the us petitions. Sorry but if you are starting or signing a petition to secede because obama got a second term, you are just a monkey rattling their cage and deserve to be ignored. For the record, I didn't vote for either idiot.
On November 23 2012 12:28 Ooshmagoosh wrote: If the outside world ceased to influence African politics in any significant way (I don't know the specifics, I hardly ever read or hear anything about Africa outside of the usual "genocide everywhere" and "colonialism did this" bits), does anyone have a good guess as to what would happen over the next 20 - 30 some years?
Everything would go to bigger shit than it is now. There is really no type of serious progress that occurs on the continent that is produced solely in the continent. They have exports, but they do not have the corporate structures to turn that into competition vs outside corporations who use the exports. It's a choice betwee Neo-colonialism (which in this case is made out to be worse than it really is) and starvation/regression (that is always worse than any alternative). The fact is that the way Africa is now cannot be changed, yes Europe screwed it up, yes China has its stake, and yes corporate greed has done its fair share, however all continents have those same descriptors. The fact is that the reason why Africa lags is because they are constantly unable to compete corporately, if they could compete in a globalized world, the continent would change almost over night.
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.
Imperialism didn't go anywhere lol. Imperialism has evolved thanks to globalization and corporatism. Imperialism today isn't about territorial control, it's about hegemonic control, whether political, economic, and/or strategic. The US is the fastest growing empire in history. Since WW2, it essentially dominates most of Europe, parts of the Far East, plenty of 3rd world countries dependent on US and other Western corporatism, and can basically pay off any other country to do what it wants, especially in strategic zones like the Mideast. Of course, there is always the option of war against unsubmissive states.
It took a couple thousand years, but since WW2, countries (well, the US and former USSR) are starting to follow the ancient Assyrian model of imperialism of hegemonic control. It's a lot cheaper, a lot more discreet, and doesn't embroil you in local problems and tensions.
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.
Imperialism didn't go anywhere lol. Imperialism has evolved thanks to globalization and corporatism. Imperialism today isn't about territorial control, it's about hegemonic control, whether political, economic, and/or strategic. The US is the fastest growing empire in history. Since WW2, it essentially dominates most of Europe, parts of the Far East, plenty of 3rd world countries dependent on US and other Western corporatism, and can basically pay off any other country to do what it wants, especially in strategic zones like the Mideast. Of course, there is always the option of war against unsubmissive states.
It took a couple thousand years, but since WW2, countries (well, the US and former USSR) are starting to follow the ancient Assyrian model of imperialism of hegemonic control. It's a lot cheaper, a lot more discreet, and doesn't embroil you in local problems and tensions.
I've been making that point over and over throughout this topic including in the post you quoted.
These 'rebels' are Tutsis, being armed by Rwanda. There was some speculation following the South Sudan referendum that the Rwandans would use that as precedent to detach Eastern Congo as another independent, Tutsi dominated state.
What is surprising though is how incompetent the Congolese Army has been. Or rather, it isnt surprising that they are incompetent but you would think with 20,000 UN peacekeepers there and with peacekeeper tanks these guys would want to stick around and fight.
Either way though, the rebels arent going anywhere far from Rwanda. That is where their supply lines are; as someone else pointed out the last time this kind of stuff started off and the Rwandans began their march to Kinshasa you had a bunch of random African states show up and block them. And while some of those countries have been weakened (Zimbabwe!) at least a couple of them are infinitely stronger (Angola!)
Anyway, as always with the Rwandans the international community is in a pickle. On one hand, because they sat on their hands while the genocide was happening they forced the Tutsis into the actions they are now taking. On the other hand, Rwanda wholly depends on foreign aid and to let these guys keep coming up every 4-5 years and kick over the Congo because they think they are Prussia is tremendously costly.
Another interesting question -- what is Uganda going to do. The last war ultimately ended because the Rwandans and Ugandas fell out over looting Eastern Congo but this time around the Ugandan dictator is older, looks much more vulnerable and has to keep unleashing the cops on the opposition. Will risk another war against a real enemy, and this time with some of his best troops off in Somalia?
As everyone else observed: sucks for the Africans. With the vast amounts of natural resources out there, with their great soil and with cheap labor they should be killing it instead of getting killed [and some are. The other day Ghanda's GDP was revised to make it a middle income country and Botswana/Angola will probably never be poor again but as long as the Congo is fucked up there will be no peace in Africa. Too many very expensive, very easily smugable things are hidden in those jungles and hills.]
On November 23 2012 12:28 Ooshmagoosh wrote: If the outside world ceased to influence African politics in any significant way (I don't know the specifics, I hardly ever read or hear anything about Africa outside of the usual "genocide everywhere" and "colonialism did this" bits), does anyone have a good guess as to what would happen over the next 20 - 30 some years?
Everything would go to bigger shit than it is now. There is really no type of serious progress that occurs on the continent that is produced solely in the continent. They have exports, but they do not have the corporate structures to turn that into competition vs outside corporations who use the exports. It's a choice betwee Neo-colonialism (which in this case is made out to be worse than it really is) and starvation/regression (that is always worse than any alternative). The fact is that the way Africa is now cannot be changed, yes Europe screwed it up, yes China has its stake, and yes corporate greed has done its fair share, however all continents have those same descriptors. The fact is that the reason why Africa lags is because they are constantly unable to compete corporately, if they could compete in a globalized world, the continent would change almost over night.
Somewhat-ish off topic, but:
If the African countries suddenly stopped killing each-other and worked together to rebuild the continent, but decided to keep their resources under state or local control (or at the very least, mostly between the African states), how do you think the governments of the 'rest of the world' would react?
I know that's kind of a weird wacky hypothetical that nobody could possibly have a real answer to, like If I asked what the esports scene would look like today if Flash was Japanese, but...humor me.
On November 23 2012 12:28 Ooshmagoosh wrote: If the outside world ceased to influence African politics in any significant way (I don't know the specifics, I hardly ever read or hear anything about Africa outside of the usual "genocide everywhere" and "colonialism did this" bits), does anyone have a good guess as to what would happen over the next 20 - 30 some years?
Everything would go to bigger shit than it is now. There is really no type of serious progress that occurs on the continent that is produced solely in the continent. They have exports, but they do not have the corporate structures to turn that into competition vs outside corporations who use the exports. It's a choice betwee Neo-colonialism (which in this case is made out to be worse than it really is) and starvation/regression (that is always worse than any alternative). The fact is that the way Africa is now cannot be changed, yes Europe screwed it up, yes China has its stake, and yes corporate greed has done its fair share, however all continents have those same descriptors. The fact is that the reason why Africa lags is because they are constantly unable to compete corporately, if they could compete in a globalized world, the continent would change almost over night.
Somewhat-ish off topic, but:
If the African countries suddenly stopped killing each-other and worked together to rebuild the continent, but decided to keep their resources under state or local control (or at the very least, mostly between the African states), how do you think the governments of the 'rest of the world' would react?
I know that's kind of a weird wacky hypothetical that nobody could possibly have a real answer to, like If I asked what the esports scene would look like today if Flash was Japanese, but...humor me.
we would try to prop up rebel groups. Support them with weapons, make the leaders and their clans rich if they give us access to ressources. If this subtle methods fail, we would create some kind of idiplomatic incident/ small scale skirmish, invade and rob them off.
I can't understand why people so often assume a prosperous Africa is not in the interests of the developed world. Some resources might become a tad more expensive, but the benefits for the world economy would far outweigh that. It's not like the fact that Australia, South Africa and Canada - all major resource exporters - are developed, independent countries hurts the large economies of the world. On the contrary: Resource exploitation is way more efficient and the generated wealth creates consumers.
On November 23 2012 17:55 Maenander wrote: I can't understand why people so often assume a prosperous Africa is not in the interests of the developed world. Some resources might become a tad more expensive, but the benefits for the world economy would far outweigh that. It's not like the fact that Australia, South Africa and Canada - all major resource exporters - are developed, independent countries hurts the large economies of the world. On the contrary: Resource exploitation is way more efficient and the wealth produces new consumer markets.
This. If anything an Africa which is developed and wealthy would be a boon for resource exploitation, as that would drastically increase the total supply available. You can mine a lot more of what you need when your workers are equipped with modern equipment and hauling ore out on decent infrastructure.
On November 23 2012 17:55 Maenander wrote: I can't understand why people so often assume a prosperous Africa is not in the interests of the developed world. Some resources might become a tad more expensive, but the benefits for the world economy would far outweigh that. It's not like the fact that Australia, South Africa and Canada - all major resource exporters - are developed, independent countries hurts the large economies of the world. On the contrary: Resource exploitation is way more efficient and the wealth produces new consumer markets.
This. If anything an Africa which is developed and wealthy would be a boon for resource exploitation, as that would drastically increase the total supply available. You can mine a lot more of what you need when your workers are equipped with modern equipment and hauling ore out on decent infrastructure.
I would argue that our goal is not maximizing ressource exploitation, but rather limiting supply for the concurrence while grabbing most of it for dirt cheap prices. Basically secure the own supply and additionally control or even cripple the competition. China (you are Chineseor of chinese descent, am I right?) is currently limiting the export of rare earths while stocking up the own reserves. Officially under the banner of sustained economic development, inofficially to strengthen China's position in "new" technology areas via cutting down the supply of the concurrence. West cries foul because our own businesses get put under pressure via increasing prices and short supply. Not meant as critisizm, just to show examples of protectionism regarding national interests.
Point is, ressource maximization is not necessarily the goal politics tries to achieve.
On November 23 2012 17:55 Maenander wrote: I can't understand why people so often assume a prosperous Africa is not in the interests of the developed world. Some resources might become a tad more expensive, but the benefits for the world economy would far outweigh that. It's not like the fact that Australia, South Africa and Canada - all major resource exporters - are developed, independent countries hurts the large economies of the world. On the contrary: Resource exploitation is way more efficient and the generated wealth creates consumers.
Canada is one of the founding members of the NATO block. Rather bully than victim in the playing field of international politics. Australia is part of the Commonwealth and in tight Alliance with the NATO via Commonwealth. South Africa's wealth was created under Apartheid on the back of the majorily black population. Very wealthy white elite, dirt poor majority. Second or third highest Gini coefficient in the world. In South Africa a very small elite organizes ressource trade with international business. In other countries this situation gets created via proxy dictators or via military force.
EDIT: Just looked it up, in South Africa the average income of a white person is ten (!!!!) times higher than the average income of a black person.
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.
Not really, but those books contain interesting information about social organisation and why certain civilisations failed while other thrived. I'd also add Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Collapse" to that list.
Wars in this part of the world are always the most inhumanly brutal. War is always brutal I would never imply that it wasn't but when you hear about cannibalism, treatment of civilians and child soldiers (I am not saying these are present in the Congo, but they have been more common in sub-Saharan African wars than else where.) You pass a line into supremely fucked up. Interesting series by Vice Magazine on Liberia here if anyone is interested. Shane Smith interviews former Liberian Warlords, and travels around the country.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course.
Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices.
EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
If you have a computer you're probably indirectly complicit in the vast majority of the atrocities going on around the world. There's a reason the first world has so much money and it's not that we all just work harder than everyone else.
You're right. The reason is that we have more infrastructure and machinery that enables higher productivity. We get more for the same amount of work.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course.
Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices.
EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies.
Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship.
Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course.
Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices.
EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies.
Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship.
Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this:
On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course.
Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices.
EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies.
Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship.
Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this:
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
On November 23 2012 12:28 Ooshmagoosh wrote: If the outside world ceased to influence African politics in any significant way (I don't know the specifics, I hardly ever read or hear anything about Africa outside of the usual "genocide everywhere" and "colonialism did this" bits), does anyone have a good guess as to what would happen over the next 20 - 30 some years?
Well the short story is that, even as it is, Africa is slowly rising out of the mud. It'll be a while (don't have a grip on how long) before they're seen like Asia is today, but it's coming. Some countries will probably continue to be shit for quite some time though. For various reasons.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course.
Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices.
EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies.
Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship.
Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this:
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
That isn't backpeddeling.
Shell works with the situation that exists in a nation, but the ideal is far from a war-torn rebel nation.
Shell supports these regimes in the same way that a fruit vendor paying taxes supports them.
Like I already showed, it doesn't really matter what Shell does, you'll call them evil either way. Why would Shell be allowed to operate in a nation and not pay taxes? That you believe those taxes go to guns rather than roads, is a misconception on your end on how taxes work.
You're reaching pretty far here. A company paying the government mandated taxes is a long way from supporting these regimes.
Would any corporation that dealt with these nations be guilty of war crimes in your view? You think that will do these nations good? All the companies in the world withdrawing from these places, because paying taxes in your mind is equal to support for human atrocities.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course.
Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices.
EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies.
Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship.
Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this:
On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
That isn't backpeddeling.
Shell works with the situation that exists in a nation, but the ideal is far from a war-torn rebel nation.
Shell supports these regimes in the same way that a fruit vendor paying taxes supports them.
Like I already showed, it doesn't really matter what Shell does, you'll call them evil either way. Why would Shell be allowed to operate in a nation and not pay taxes? That you believe those taxes go to guns rather than roads, is a misconception on your end on how taxes work.
You're reaching pretty far here. A company paying the government mandated taxes is a long way from supporting these regimes.
Would any corporation that dealt with these nations be guilty of war crimes in your view? You think that will do these nations good? All the companies in the world withdrawing from these places, because paying taxes in your mind is equal to support for human atrocities.
Shell does much more then that.
They have such a stake in the nigerian government surviving that they don't only pay taxes, but actually offer foreign expertise (manpower, training, you name it) to nearly all government ministries, trying both to keep the current elite in power and 'spying' on the government the same time. Shell has actually built an intelligence infrastructure in Nigeria and uses it to try to supress activities it considers harmful to its business, by trying to get the nigerian government to act, or, if needed, involving other countries. Shell actively maintains the status-quo, mainly because its good for them.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
somehow funny that you just mention Shell. Shell is currently supporting the military dictatorship in Niger against a rebel group called MEND. MEND wants a bigger piece of the oil pie for the locals. Shell is of course interested in small prices, the dictatorship is able to create these low prices. Niger's military leaders use that money created by the oil trade to wage war on the population in the Niger delta. Other businesses sell all groups involved the weapons they can afford. Everybody wins, except the locals of course.
Staying in Niger. French state owned enterprise Areva supports the same military dictatorship in exchange for uranium mining rights in Tuareg territory. Miltary leaders use that money to wage war against the Tuaregs in Niger. Just putting out two examples here, initiatelly triggered by your shell comment. Situation in all these war torn countries is always similar. Sometimes rebel groups get supported, sometimes some dictatorship, whoever offers the best prices.
EDIT: Forgot some kind of conclusion. Dictatorships/rebel groups/insurgents are reliable business partners because they need the money/income generated by ressource trade to engage, or wage war against their innerpolitical enemies.
Shell pays taxes. They support the dictatorship.
Shell doesn't pay taxes. Neo-colonial megacorp is raping the oil reserves of the third world for free.
In reality neither international businesses nor corporations care with whom they trade as long as they are paid. Nice way to backpedal though, from basically this:
On November 23 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
So why support the military dictatorship which wages war against its own population on multiple fronts with taxes and royalties? We don't care as long as our interests are not in danger, that is why. Your statement that these conflicts all over the continent are the lone result of inner African problems is simply not true
That isn't backpeddeling.
Shell works with the situation that exists in a nation, but the ideal is far from a war-torn rebel nation.
Shell supports these regimes in the same way that a fruit vendor paying taxes supports them.
Like I already showed, it doesn't really matter what Shell does, you'll call them evil either way. Why would Shell be allowed to operate in a nation and not pay taxes? That you believe those taxes go to guns rather than roads, is a misconception on your end on how taxes work.
You're reaching pretty far here. A company paying the government mandated taxes is a long way from supporting these regimes.
Would any corporation that dealt with these nations be guilty of war crimes in your view? You think that will do these nations good? All the companies in the world withdrawing from these places, because paying taxes in your mind is equal to support for human atrocities.
Shell does much more then that.
They have such a stake in the nigerian government surviving that they don't only pay taxes, but actually offer foreign expertise (manpower, training, you name it) to nearly all government ministries, trying both to keep the current elite in power and 'spying' on the government the same time. Shell has actually built an intelligence infrastructure in Nigeria and uses it to try to supress activities it considers harmful to its business, by trying to get the nigerian government to act, or, if needed, involving other countries. Shell actively maintains the status-quo, mainly because its good for them.
Shell has indeed intwined itself a great deal with the Nigerian government, and in some cases it crosses the boundaries of what is acceptable, or even legal. I'm not defending them on those accounts, and I don't doubt that to some degree they engage in bribing officials, all things I wouldn't throw my support behind.
But none of that proves the entire premise of the discussion, the idea that these companies, or "the west" is actively sabotaging African nations for cheap resources from warlords.
As you yourself said, Shell is throwing its weight behind the Uganada government. If the goal was to destablize the region from cheap warlord oil/iron/diamonds then Shell would be pumping money into rebel groups.
I won't deny that Shell has dirty hands and plays dirty games plenty of times, I don't doubt that about any giant corporation to some degree, but there is a huge gap between charges of corruption, and suggesting that there is a doctrine of intentional sabotage, targetting African nations.
Nobody benefits from these events in the Congo. Corporations, and the west, all want stability to some degree.
Now, as someone that believes in the free market, and the rights of the individual, I'll gladly admit that I don't like Shell very much, since they actively work against both in many cases.
But what shouldn't entertain, if we want to have a healthy discussion, is this ridiculous notion that corporations benefit from these Congo-type situations. They don't.
If people want to be critical, be critical of the real problem. Fighting windmills is just a waste of time, and destructive to the discussion.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
If you have a computer you're probably indirectly complicit in the vast majority of the atrocities going on around the world. There's a reason the first world has so much money and it's not that we all just work harder than everyone else.
You're right. The reason is that we have more infrastructure and machinery that enables higher productivity. We get more for the same amount of work.
Sigh, it's not merely the multiplicative effect of capital investment which lies at the bottom of the disparities between the West and the Congo. It's the fact that our political science is attempting to apply a uniform model of analysis to two vastly disparate civilisations.
When the Belgians annexed the Congo, they encountered a population which was much smaller than today (approximately 10 millions.) which was subjected to annual famines. This is because a mere century ago the indiginous tribes of the Congo had not even developed a system of surplus agriculture whereby they would hoard or trade excessive production through any system of economic exchange. It's senseless to talk about indirect development through investment into a foreign economy, where there is no economy to begin with.
While it would be wrong to say that the indigenous congoese were lazy, they did not work on the basis of patterns which responded to what we call rational profit motives. The virtue of men was to engage in hunting and warfare, and agriculture was despised as the vocation of women or slaves. Women had to perform the back-breaking labour of tilling the infertile soil of the Congo, but distained to expand plots which would multiply their burdens. There was no common medium of exchange such as money, and thus no incentive to organise what little productive labour that existed.
The hazards and violence of life in equatorial Africa is neither created by Western exploitation, nor is it within our capability to solve. People who believe that neo-liberal economic incentives are the surest way to peace are probably the same people who wonder at the foolishness of Mardonius not to have bribed the Spartans at Platea. The same Spartans, who (albeit for more complex reasons) also distained gold, lived for fighting, and distained agriculture. Nancy Mitford, writing of the wars of Louis XIV wrote flippantly that back then people didn't realise that countries could achieve far greater prosperity by living in peace rather than war. The truth is probably in the aphorism of French economist Jean-Baptise Say two centuries ago: "Whereas in France the greatest shame is to lack courage...in England it is to lack money."
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay?
I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay?
I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter.
The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it.
You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities.
What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power.
Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was.
Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources.
Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint.
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.
That's a pretty bold statement to make. I agree it'd probably be better if an organization with a large stake in their public image stepped in to develop roads, education, police, and jobs but I'm pessimistic of organizations and corruption to begin with.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay?
I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter.
The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it.
You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities.
What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power.
Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was.
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources.
Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint.
Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions.
As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay?
I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter.
The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it.
You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities.
What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power.
Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was.
Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources.
Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint.
Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions.
As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria.
So we allowed Gaddaffi to come to power, nationalize (aka steal) the oil from western companies, so he could re-sell it to us, so we could at a later point overthrow him.
All for the oil. What a clever ruse.
Wealth leaving the country? He sold oil. What the hell do you think the Libyans were gonna do with the oil if not sell it? A dictator, a businessman, a theocrat, they all sell the oil that their own economies have no use for.
Money didn't leave Libya (other than the obscene amounts that Gaddaffi stole, but he didn't exactly give that to us, and we ended up giving it back to the Libyans once confiscated), the Libyan government engaged in trade that was massively unfavorable to us in terms of the % that he took, considering the fields were property of western companies up until that point.
So this guy steals the oil from western companies, sells it back at a mark-up, and we let him be dictator for how long?
And how did we react when the Iranians tried to do the same?
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay?
I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter.
The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it.
You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities.
What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power.
Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was.
Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources.
Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint.
Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions.
As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria.
So we allowed Gaddaffi to come to power, nationalize (aka steal) the oil from western companies, so he could re-sell it to us, so we could at a later point overthrow him.
All for the oil. What a clever ruse.
Wealth leaving the country? He sold oil. What the hell do you think the Libyans were gonna do with the oil if not sell it? A dictator, a businessman, a theocrat, they all sell the oil that their own economies have no use for.
Money didn't leave Libya (other than the obscene amounts that Gaddaffi stole, but he didn't exactly give that to us, and we ended up giving it back to the Libyans once confiscated), the Libyan government engaged in trade that was massively unfavorable to us in terms of the % that he took, considering the fields were property of western companies up until that point.
So this guy steals the oil from western companies, sells it back at a mark-up, and we let him be dictator for how long?
And how did we react when the Iranians tried to do the same?
These spy-novel stories newver make much sense.
What exactly are you arguing? I'm thoroughly confused. We got rid of Gaddafi because it suited our interests, at acceptable costs. Are you seriously claiming that it was only out of the good of our hearts that we supported the Libyan revolution?
And just to be clear; The "good of our hearts" deal is one of the causes for our involvement. It's not the only one. Just like Iraq had a lot to do with oil, but also power politics (US/West power in the region). The world isn't one huge conspiracy, I agree, but the world is run by self interest and shady shit.
Edit: And in case you didn't understand: Supporting the revolution is a lot cheaper in all aspects than randomly invading or bombing Gaddafi (like... Iraq) and has very little chance of backfiring, especially compared with said alternative. "Why wasn't anything done sooner?" is therefore pretty obvious. And as far as "Why did we let him take power?" goes, when did anyone ever claim that shit outside of western control didn't happen? Stop painting people as conspiracy nuts. It'd do your ability to argue and get your points across a huge favor.
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.
Yea because the west has had a hands off approach in meddling in Africa right? Manipulation, both direct and indirect, is still going on.
Depends on how you define manpulation.
Most people here would throw a hissyfit simply because the US has an embassy there.
People confuse diplomatic relations with manipulation. There isn't a western country that has any interest with what is going on in the Congo.
Warlords do not in fact make good business partners, nor do they make resources easily available.
But some people like to believe Obama and the CEO of Shell sit around with general rape-face (or whatever they call themselves) and twirl their mustaches while cackling at the low prices of [input random resource].
A stable nation is in the interest of the west, not this hellhole.
Companies in the west are mostly not state-owned. Now imagine you are head of a company. Would you be interested in doing business with the Congo?
Would you buy your ore from China or from warlord rape-face? Which do you think is more likely to honour a contract?
Stable, rule of law, democracies, are in the best interest of the west. These civil wars are simply interesting to the enemies of Congo that want it to be run into the ground. It's warfare by proxy, and in that regard, a problem that is entirely of African making.
The CEO of Shell is not on the phone with arms dealers.
Take the example of Libya then. Do you really think that the desire for BP to exploit Libyan reserves played absolutely no role in Blair's deal in the desert? Do you really think the subsequent military effort to replace Gaddafi with a new friendly face was in no way related to him being unable to ensure stability in the country where British economic interests lay?
I think you'd have to be breathtakingly naive to think that this sort of shit doesn't go on. In the case of Libya it was completely transparent.
Gaddaffi was moving towards Benghazi, promising a slaughter.
The man had already proven that he would be more than willing to commit one, if the situation called for it.
You have a totalitarian dictator, rolling onto a city with tanks, threatening to massacre its people, a man who has in the past committed similar atrocities.
What was the world to do? Stand by and watch as the internet would be flooded with an endless stream of footage that would make the Saw series look PG-13? Right next door to Europe, they would say. Where are your values now? Letting these thousands be murdered so your oil friend Gaddaffi can stay in power.
Because yes, Gaddaffi was actually getting back into the fold, before he completely soured all relations by being the psychopath that he truly was.
Toomuchzerg
If I would be CEO of big company then of course I would do business with Congo as usually. But not with warlords or such but with middlemen providing stable amount of products for me to buy and ship it out. I would not even care how they got it but if I get it cheap then its okay. If I get caught and company image is going down then I just invest some amount to Congo to get clean image again. Simple yet effective.
The point is that these warlord run regions that are submerged in near perpetual chaos, do not make for cheap resources.
Stability and rule of law make for a good business climate. I'd like to see the economic output of Congo during its last civil war. I doubt it's the mountains of gold that some people seem to paint.
Everyone everywhere already knew Gaddafi was a psychopath, it's just that he was a psychopath we could do business with because he was willing to allow wealth to be sent out of the country. Reagan dubbed him a "mad dog", this idea that we were in some way surprised by it is absurd. As long as he didn't do anything that wouldn't be too bad PR or cause sanctions then we were fine with the dictatorship and the profits from the oil investments. The problem comes when it no longer looks like he can maintain control at which point you immediately check whether the other side is willing to safeguard all the current concessions you enjoy and then back them in the civil war which is, of course, exactly what we did. It's is literally the textbook example, find a dictator and give him guns to oppress the country in exchange for the rights to exploit the natural resources and, if he ever gets out of line (and in this case excessive massacring to the extent that people start asking difficult questions about why we're doing business with him is getting out of line), find someone else and arm them against him in exchange for even more concessions.
As for our moral imperative to intervene in Libya because of all the atrocities that would appear on TV, I have just one word for you, Syria.
So we allowed Gaddaffi to come to power, nationalize (aka steal) the oil from western companies, so he could re-sell it to us, so we could at a later point overthrow him.
All for the oil. What a clever ruse.
Wealth leaving the country? He sold oil. What the hell do you think the Libyans were gonna do with the oil if not sell it? A dictator, a businessman, a theocrat, they all sell the oil that their own economies have no use for.
Money didn't leave Libya (other than the obscene amounts that Gaddaffi stole, but he didn't exactly give that to us, and we ended up giving it back to the Libyans once confiscated), the Libyan government engaged in trade that was massively unfavorable to us in terms of the % that he took, considering the fields were property of western companies up until that point.
So this guy steals the oil from western companies, sells it back at a mark-up, and we let him be dictator for how long?
And how did we react when the Iranians tried to do the same?
These spy-novel stories newver make much sense.
I suspect you're feigning idiocy in order to fail to understand a fairly basic point but whatever, I'll run you through the timeline again.
1) BP lobbied Blair to make a deal with a Gaddafi knowing he was a dictator in order to gain access to the raw materials to invest and exploit them. BP signed a deal with Gaddafi on the same day that Blair agreed to hand over the Lockerbie bomber. This isn't a spy novel, it's a matter of public record. 2) Blair sold Gaddafi guns as part of the deal, again, a matter of public record. 3) BP invested in Libya and its operations there, again, public record. 4) Gaddafi jeopardised BP's operations by being unable to quietly repress his people without causing any bad PR. You said this yourself, he announced his intentions to commit major atrocities that would damage those affiliated with him. 5) Britain, despite originally arming Gaddafi against his opposition, switch to providing military support to his opposition, again, public record. 6) BP continues to engage in exploration of Libyan waters and continues to reap the benefits of Libyan oil which, by the way, is sold on private contracts and not the open market.
No part of this is untrue. It is literally a textbook marriage of corrupt business and political interests meddling in the affairs of a foreign nation.
But seriously, can you guys imagine the horrors of typing on a cell phone screen WITHOUT tactile feedback? I shudder at the thought.....
Also it is my thesis that this comment is just as useful to the people of the Congo as every other comment in this thread. I guess complete impotence just turns me off of trying to find constructive solutions to problems.
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.
What an absolutely absurd thing to say. British control of African colonies contributed to the subjugation and enslavement of an entire race.
The abundant wealth of Africa requires extraction, refinement and a vast array of logistical concerns of which only a few African nations could afford the expense. They ought not be the richest countries in the world, as they haven't the slightest semblance of infrastructure required to acquire and trade their natural resources.
As far as imperialism, and of British involvement, you're forgetting it would be nearly impossible for most nations, including Great Britain, to intervene on unilateral terms. Great Britain is but a shadow of its former self, and can hardly lift a finger without unamious support from the EU, UN and US. The US could potentially intervene unilaterally, but at the vast expense of international condemnation and without the immeasurable aid of an international coalition.
I'd suggest you re-evaluate your position, as it is inherently biased and lacks the comprehensive analysis of an impartial observer. Furthermore I'd suggest you enlist more civil language against those who disagree with you, as your demeanor seems unbecoming of a TL mod.
The history of colonization in Africa goes back very deep, with a lot of cause and effects from each imperialist country.
It's like the state of the poor American ghettos. There is a lot of history there and you can't put all the blame on the individuals living and growing up in the ghetto. A lot of history involved.
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.
What an absolutely absurd thing to say. British control of African colonies contributed to the subjugation and enslavement of an entire race. I'd suggest you re-evaluate your position, as it is inherently biased and lacks the comprehensive analysis of an impartial observer.
You've attempted to critique my position without understanding a single word of it and therefore failed utterly. I'm well aware of the immorality of the empire, I make that explicitly clear in every post on the subject.
On November 22 2012 19:34 1Dhalism wrote: takes a special kind of ignorance to, while talking in hypotheticals, out of all possible imaginable situations to pick a murderous and oppressive regime and talk about it with such pride and affection. There is something very wrong with you Kwark.
If you have a computer you're probably indirectly complicit in the vast majority of the atrocities going on around the world. There's a reason the first world has so much money and it's not that we all just work harder than everyone else.
You're right. The reason is that we have more infrastructure and machinery that enables higher productivity. We get more for the same amount of work.
Sigh, it's not merely the multiplicative effect of capital investment which lies at the bottom of the disparities between the West and the Congo. It's the fact that our political science is attempting to apply a uniform model of analysis to two vastly disparate civilisations.
When the Belgians annexed the Congo, they encountered a population which was much smaller than today (approximately 10 millions.) which was subjected to annual famines. This is because a mere century ago the indiginous tribes of the Congo had not even developed a system of surplus agriculture whereby they would hoard or trade excessive production through any system of economic exchange. It's senseless to talk about indirect development through investment into a foreign economy, where there is no economy to begin with.
While it would be wrong to say that the indigenous congoese were lazy, they did not work on the basis of patterns which responded to what we call rational profit motives. The virtue of men was to engage in hunting and warfare, and agriculture was despised as the vocation of women or slaves. Women had to perform the back-breaking labour of tilling the infertile soil of the Congo, but distained to expand plots which would multiply their burdens. There was no common medium of exchange such as money, and thus no incentive to organise what little productive labour that existed.
The hazards and violence of life in equatorial Africa is neither created by Western exploitation, nor is it within our capability to solve. People who believe that neo-liberal economic incentives are the surest way to peace are probably the same people who wonder at the foolishness of Mardonius not to have bribed the Spartans at Platea. The same Spartans, who (albeit for more complex reasons) also distained gold, lived for fighting, and distained agriculture. Nancy Mitford, writing of the wars of Louis XIV wrote flippantly that back then people didn't realise that countries could achieve far greater prosperity by living in peace rather than war. The truth is probably in the aphorism of French economist Jean-Baptise Say two centuries ago: "Whereas in France the greatest shame is to lack courage...in England it is to lack money."
Uh... none of that long random rant relates to me or what I said. I guess you felt compelled to share that information with me. Very strange post.
Libya is in no way comparable to Congo and should not be discussed here in my opinion. Most of the oil money stays in the country btw, before and after the intervention.
On November 23 2012 17:55 Maenander wrote: I can't understand why people so often assume a prosperous Africa is not in the interests of the developed world. Some resources might become a tad more expensive, but the benefits for the world economy would far outweigh that. It's not like the fact that Australia, South Africa and Canada - all major resource exporters - are developed, independent countries hurts the large economies of the world. On the contrary: Resource exploitation is way more efficient and the generated wealth creates consumers.
Canada is one of the founding members of the NATO block. Rather bully than victim in the playing field of international politics. Australia is part of the Commonwealth and in tight Alliance with the NATO via Commonwealth. South Africa's wealth was created under Apartheid on the back of the majorily black population. Very wealthy white elite, dirt poor majority. Second or third highest Gini coefficient in the world. In South Africa a very small elite organizes ressource trade with international business. In other countries this situation gets created via proxy dictators or via military force.
EDIT: Just looked it up, in South Africa the average income of a white person is ten (!!!!) times higher than the average income of a black person.
What does this have to do with the core of my argument, namely that stable, prosperous countries in Africa would benefit the first world countries rather than harm them?
It's a sad fact that many economies around the world are dominated by corrupt elites.
On November 24 2012 06:17 udgnim wrote: just curious
anyone know if China is reacting to this or whether the fighting is anywhere near the resources in Congo that China controls?
pretty sure China wants a stable Congo to keep mining Congo's resources
Nah, China's been squeezed out of the big concessions there a while back by Freeport McMoran. Plus, China (contrary to what Westerners say) actually tend to prefer stable, somewhat non-corrupt governments as operating partners, since those governments tend to do things like build roads, keep the lights on, and keep the Chinese staff from getting kidnapped. Given that the repayment period of a typical infrastructure investment tied to a natural resource deposit is between fifteen and thirty years, and that most Chinese firms tend to build their own on-site infrastructure, most Chinese firms tend to prefer governments that are long-term stable, even if they cost more to work with in the near-term.
(Part of my duties while interning for the Chinese state bank was interacting with their stake in the China-Africa Development Fund, so I got to see firsthand the project terms involved)
On November 24 2012 03:36 Lumi wrote: It's pretty silly to say that "Sub-Sahara Africa is beyond hope."
Exactly. Apart from the Kivus that are in the shitter again Africa is doing better than ever. If they only figure out a good way to stop corruption they will take an even bigger leap forward. Countries like Angola, Botswana, Gabon, Ghana and Rwanda are some examples (taken "on the top of my head") of African countries on the way "up". The Malawi agricultural thingy is also worth mentioning.
As I mentioned in my previous post North Kivu was improving quite rapidly until recently. Perhaps you should just split up Congo into smaller parts and that way they can sort out their problems without some rebel group trying to take over every now and then. Unfortunately thats what started the war in Katanga.
On November 22 2012 20:42 Slaughter wrote: Oh USA. If only Europe hadn't fucked you up so much back in the day
fixed
I don't get it. Is this just some completely unrelated jab at the US, or are you trying to somehow tie in a point that relates to the relevant topic of European imperialism in Africa?
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.
This is not really accurate. Post-colonial experience always leads to civil wars between/among warlords who were kept fat and at bay during the colonial regime. The problem is unless there is assimilation by a larger country, like China-Taipei, or the social politics is developed enough in transition, colonial countries always become a loot basket for the leaders or whoever becomes is power after the colonialists have left. And this has a lot to do by the colonialist not having a post-colonial program for the states in question.
Post-colonial experience always leads to civil wars between/among warlords who were kept fat and at bay during the colonial regime.
This is not really accurate.
You find the problem of lack of stability and endemic warfare in former colonies where lack of stability and endemic warfare were the norm before the Europeans arrived. And even some of those places didn't have post-colonial violence, or only had limited violence, or didn't have major violence until decades or centuries later (Colombia is an example), for reasons unconnected to their colonial past.
You find the problem of lack of stability and endemic warfare in former colonies where lack of stability and endemic warfare were the norm before the Europeans arrived. And even some of those places didn't have post-colonial violence, or only had limited violence, or didn't have major violence until decades or centuries later (Colombia is an example), for reasons unconnected to their colonial past.
I don't believe you can readily detach Columbia from the imperial system. Imperialism goes well beyond physical occupation and direct governing of colonies, South America was still part of the imperial system, it's just the elites there knew the game and followed the rules so you don't end up in the situation where financial interests need political interests to use military power to secure their investments. Once those elites became destabilised by the rise of communism in Latin America the normal pattern was followed, economic concerns became political concerns and the CIA become involved in proxy wars.
That the elites lasted longer before they became unable to guarantee the stability needed for western exploitation of natural resources does not alter the fundamental pattern. A fixation on the colour a country is shaded in on the map often misses the point, the economic imperialism system did not require direct control, military intervention was the result of a failure of the normal running of the system. You cannot simply detach a country from the system on a given date and then say it suffered no negative consequences.
Post-colonial experience always leads to civil wars between/among warlords who were kept fat and at bay during the colonial regime.
This is not really accurate.
You find the problem of lack of stability and endemic warfare in former colonies where lack of stability and endemic warfare were the norm before the Europeans arrived. And even some of those places didn't have post-colonial violence, or only had limited violence, or didn't have major violence until decades or centuries later (Colombia is an example), for reasons unconnected to their colonial past.
I don't believe you can readily detach Columbia from the imperial system. Imperialism goes well beyond physical occupation and direct governing of colonies, South America was still part of the imperial system, it's just the elites there knew the game and followed the rules so you don't end up in the situation where financial interests need political interests to use military power to secure their investments. Once those elites became destabilised by the rise of communism in Latin America the normal pattern was followed, economic concerns became political concerns and the CIA become involved in proxy wars.
That the elites lasted longer before they became unable to guarantee the stability needed for western exploitation of natural resources does not alter the fundamental pattern.
South America was physically occupied and directly governed for several centuries. Most countries there also gained their freedom a generation before Europe started colonizing Africa in earnest. What I'm saying is that they had a lengthy amount of time for political development both before and after European direct rule stopped, and a significant European - well Spanish and Portuguese - mixing into the populace. And so for most of them they avoided the kind of endemic warfare seen in post-colonial Africa.
Proxy wars in Latin and South America were caused by the United States not wanting to allow the Soviet Union to gain another foothold in the region after we naively believed the bullcrap Castro fed us about not being a Red. Save for popular support for Soviet puppets (or at least Soviet friends) getting a boost because of hostility against the old elite and "Yanqui imperialism," pretty unconnected to their colonial past. And even if there had never been European colonization, there would still have been an elite, susceptible to the criticisms of Marxism.
And again, my point wasn't that you can dismiss all connections between colonialism and Cold War problems or current problems in Latin and South America, it's that you can't simply say 'Oh well the violence is always inevitable because the imperialists set up a bad situation and then leave the natives drifting in the wind' because the violence was not always inevitable and the situation left behind by the imperialists was not always so bad as to be crippling for the newly free nations.
I said Colombia and nowhere else because I think the violence in Colombia was simply inevitable thanks to cocaine and other drugs. Regardless of Colombia's past, the opportunity to make a basically unlimited amount of cash off drugs would have led to instability and violence. If the FARC hadn't existed, the cartels would have had direct control over its areas of production, instead of having their own areas and also buying coca and weed from the FARC.
EPT
Regarding the 20th century:
