You're viewing a single thread.
I read a book about the Congo. One thing that really stood out to me was the Malaysian guy on the UN boat. The only transport in the interior of the Congo is a UN paid gunboat.
He basically said "this country had colonialism my country had colonialism. They can't keep using that excuse forever. This country is shit today because of the locals, they need to make it better instead of acting like they have no control over their own country."
The best sub Saharan countries were the ones that had the most white influence. WW2, America and Russia kinda fucked up the exist though.
"this country had colonialism my country had colonialism. They can't keep using that excuse forever. This country is shit today because of the locals, they need to make it better instead of acting like they have no control over their own country."
I think comparing the colonialism of Malaysia and the Congo is incredibly idiotic. The Belgian Congo under Leopold is arguably one of the most harrowing examples of people in bondage in human history.
They really aren't even similar forms of colonization, which makes sense considering Malaysia was colonized nearly 300 years before Congo. Malaysia was also composed of a more uniform ethnic group, while the Congos borders were invented by colonizer states diving up the continent.
Most of the problems in Africa are a direct result of Europeans creating nation states with no regard to historical ethnic conflicts.
Some Malaysian guy working for the UN in Congo said it not me.
The problem is tribal regions in Africa are so small that the countries would be tiny. Plus there is a lot of aggression between the different tribes, they have been at war forever but luckily when guns got to the country it was with the whites keeping law and order. They stopped a lot of tribal conflicts m. When the whites left all this tribal conflicts resurfaced and genocides happened but now with guns.
It's not like anyone even today and can say what the borders should have been. Sure there are mistakes and there would be an issue with borders however they are divided. But at some point it's what's you got and how you got to deal with it.
Malaysia is a very "divided" country with Chinese, Indians, Maylays but they aren't a divided country.
Some Malaysian guy working for the UN in Congo said it not me.
Yeah, but your arguments have been supportive of his statements.
The problem is tribal regions in Africa are so small that the countries would be tiny.
Maybe small for Africa, but that's not exactly small compared to the rest of the world. Are you arguing that countries like Monaco shouldn't exist?
Plus there is a lot of aggression between the different tribes, they have been at war forever but luckily when guns got to the country it was with the whites keeping law and order.
Lol, what? That's some Rhodesia level copium you're smoking there.....
First of all, in most cases the ethnic conflict is a direct result of European powers elevating certain ethnicities and utilizing them to keep their neighbors in line. Secondly you are ignoring all the systemic violence and outright genocide that Europeans used to keep "law and order".
It's not like anyone even today and can say what the borders should have been.
I'm sure some people who live in Africa will disagree with this sentiment....
Sure there are mistakes and there would be an issue with borders however they are divided. But at some point it's what's you got and how you got to deal with it.
And yet, this is only a problem in parts of the world that were colonized by Europe after the 18th century.
This is the result of countries colluding together to strip territories away from their inhabitants via land marks on a map. The same thing happened in the Middle East after the collapse of the ottoman empire. It's not fucking rocket science my dude.
You want the world to be a certain way and pretend it is.
It just isn't so. Many many places around the world have issues with borders. If africa knew what's borders they should have they can go have them.
Wars have always existed in Africa.
Zimbabwe and South Africa are horrific failures. They aren't the only ones. The progress made in those countries was great for a time, then regressed
You want the world to be a certain way and pretend it is.
Lol, compared to you? I've at least given examples of historical context pertaining to the matter. All you've done is make racist false generalities.
If africa knew what's borders they should have they can go have them.
You mean like they did before the Scramble for Africa?
Zimbabwe and South Africa are horrific failures
You don't think that the whole apartheid and generations of being ruled over by a violent foreign minority has anything to do with that?
The historical revisionism people will undertake to validate their racism is always astounding.
What the ever loving fuck are you even saying here
Africas fucked and it's not all the whites fault.
People aren't blaming "the whites", they are blaming the colonialism of Africa in the 18th and 19th century. You are the only person who is falsely equivocating that as all "white people".
You have nothing to do with the achievements or failures of colonizers from the 1800s. Your only fault is that you actually believe that "white" is anything but an outdated classification system, invented to justify things like the Scramble for Africa and slavery.
The only reason you even have a grievance is because racial "science" has told you that you are somehow connected to these historical figures, despite not being the same ethnicity, or sharing any culture, or even speaking the same language.
For the love of God, just read some history about the Scramble for Africa.
Oh look... a white supremacist.