Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 42   1  2  Next >>   
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 00:50:52


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
Read this first.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html
So, do you think colonialism is preferable to the current situation? I am inclined to say so. If we could have colonialism with moderate human rights, I am sure it would be better than the AIDS/Ebola infested, mud-drinking hell-hole Africa is now. What about you?
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 00:51:10


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
And without the racism and slave trade too
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 00:51:38


Benjamin628 
Level 59
Report
no
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 00:52:48


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
Why?
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 00:54:52


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
Was Europe better in German rule, or the grand old Japanese-led East Asia Prosperity Ball?

Edited 4/12/2016 00:55:31
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 00:56:35


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
No, because they can have plumbing and technology and water and medicine without the concentration camps. That is a straw man analogy. Try again.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 01:05:11


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
No, because they can have plumbing and technology and water and medicine without the concentration camps.


Ok, was the Japanese East Asia Prosperity Ball (without any concentration camps, mind you) good besides the racist bits? Or Germany?

That is a straw man analogy.


Do you know what straw man means? It's not it.

Also, your generalisation of Africa into AIDS/Ebola infested, mud-drinking hell-hole, well, it's just false for most Africa (coming from someone who lives in Africa).

Edited 4/12/2016 01:06:37
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 01:06:56


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
In Asmara, the main street, it's called Viale Mussolini.

Edited 4/12/2016 01:07:24
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 01:07:20


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
The Europeans were quite find of killing folk willy-nilly, but there were a few positives. Were the positives more than the negatives? Depends on how much you value human life. The Germans committed ethnic cleansing in Nambia, but they helped the infrastructure there. The Belgians committed awful atrocities against the Congolese and they didn't help much. The British and French helped build the Suez Canal and that's great for Egypt. It's a mixed bag.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 01:08:54


Benjamin628 
Level 59
Report
Colonialism was bad for Africa because they were getting diseased, exploited, drugged, etc by European powers, for European benefit. Liberia may be an exception, but most African tribes were better off not being exposed to the rest of the world, whether developed or not doesn't matter, as Africa has a severe geographical disadvantage, as being trapped by desert, and communication is stifled with a rain-forest. South America shows similar struggles.

Like MGSB said, British and French powers did a lot of good in architecture, but I value all human lives.

Belgians in the Congo were very bad, and they started a (Civil) War, where Africans were killing their neighbors for thousands of years.

Edited 4/12/2016 01:15:05
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 01:19:04


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
Another interesting article on the topic
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/11/opinion/op-ferguson11
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 02:25:00


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
That article doesn't take things really in perspect. 22.5m $ is about 0.8 $ for each Ghanian, for a whole year, so the article doesn't have anything to say in the grounds that America was actually trying to help in a significant way, as even the Ghanian daily income is better than the American yearly help. 20m $ to celebrate something culturally important (would American government just say, nope, we're over 100% in foreign debt, we're saving this year. No independence day celebrations 2016, sorry. Moreover, it's an anniversary, so pretend this is all in 1975.) amounts to 0.7$ for each Ghanian.

Though it's bad for Ghanian, it's culturally important to them and I bet most would approve of the spending on it, just like Americans approve of mad military spending while under debt.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 02:28:12


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
I'm all for unionism, but also for democracy. Few Africans will want the European power back, it'd be like inviting Japan to take Oahu. Japan is great with islands, probably better than America, and so will take better care of it...but I doubt the Oahuans care.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 04:48:41


Welsh Knight
Level 59
Report
I'm not going to read any of these posts unless their posted by actual Africans. Only they belong in this discussion in my opinion.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 04:54:17


Welsh Knight
Level 59
Report
but since it has already started ill say this: many blacks in America are very happy today.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 05:47:12


myhandisonfire 
Level 54
Report
Oh wow, Time found a guy who mourns colonialism and you assume that is the general opinion?

What you don't realize is, that this part of a much grander scheme.
Let me explain.
Firstly colonialism didn't end, it just changed it's face. Since the independence of the majority of African countries after World War 2, the western powers continued their engagement in Africa. The exploitation of the people and the ressource went on via the IWF and Worldbank or French Instituions, instead of direct involvement. Any democratic elected governments in Africa that tried to lead their countries out of post colonial structures that continued the exploitation, were subject to coup'etats. In the last 50 years, 45 governments have been violently toppled, with help and by command of the western powers. Countless upright Presidents have been killed by the CIA or by the Légion étrangère . France having the biggest stake in Africa, playing the biggest role. It established an exploitation system in 14 ex-colonial countries in Africa, that virtually suffocates those countries, preventing any real development and local decision making. If you want to read about the full extend which annually flushes 500 billion dollars into French pockets, read here:

http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/?utm_content=buffer8680a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

If you are interested in watching a well made documentary as a paradigm of postcolonial exploitation by the west in Africa, watch this about Thomas Sankara, nothing short but a true hero of Africa. It is defenitely one of the best documentaries you can watch about that topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgD-jhBIdiQ&nohtml5=False


But what is the grander scheme? Why is there a propagandistic effort to paint the situation of Congo black? Despite the obvious hiding of their own interests in Africa, the Western powers feel truely threatened for the first time in history. Western colonialism is about to end and that unviolently due to the involvement of China on the continent. China arrived on the continent and it is changing its face. Because now, other than the Western powers who exploited the ressources of the country without any return service, the Chinese are financing and conducting huge development programs in exchange for ressources. China provides a win-win situation and is by far more attractive to African governments than the West. In Congo alone the Chinese build tens of thousands of km of streets, more than 2000 schools, several hospitals and 2 airports in exchange for a fixed amount of ressources. In contrast, the West didnt realize any infrastructure projects that benefits the whole population and that for an indefinite amount of ressources.
This is why you will see huge propaganda efforts to paint Chinas involvement in Africa black and White-wash western involvement.

Edited 4/12/2016 05:58:22
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 05:50:44


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
^
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 07:22:28


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
@myhandisonfire +1

Western powers still colonize africa, that can't be argued against.


Now for you GeneralPE, I have a question. Can you stay a hole week without posting any stupidity? Really. Just one week? Last week you were claiming that Spain had a secret plan to make kids become muslims, now you say that colonialism is a great idea, next week you might say that the only way to fix the drug problem in mexico is to do an american invasion.

Seriously, the ammount of stupidity you post here is beyond imagination.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 09:34:22


Pulsey
Level 56
Report
Can you stay a hole week without posting any stupidity?


Ah, always nice to see liberals being so tolerant.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 09:38:21


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report

Ah, always nice to see liberals being so tolerant.


This goes for both sides I suppose.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 09:55:12


Pulsey
Level 56
Report
Of course, but it's not nearly as ironic for a person styling himself a 'liberal' to be so unliberal to other people's opinions.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 10:44:56


+Skapis9999+
Level 58
Report
No... 1 million times no.... i would prefer to live in jungles free!! i would prefer to have no electricity, no energy, no education, no goverment... When 97 % of the people in former colonies lives under povertt limit you cannot say that Africa was benefited from colonialism.. Visit Belgium... Go to a hotel, a reastaurant, a mini market, constructions... lower places belong to people from Belgian Congo, Pakistan and Turkey.. Phillipines are active as well... No country can be ever benefited by dictators!!! ever never!!! It is quite easy to say these words in a hot room in western europe or northern america!! Visit, eastern europe, africa, asia and south africa where it is normal to get 1 US dollar per day!! IF you believe that capitalism saved that countries you are confused.. Burghina FAso produces huge countities of cotton.. IMF and USA get them sell it cheap.. so they starve... Visit PAkistan... almost 1/5 of your products are produced there!! Why?? Because British imperialists went there!!
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 10:57:30


Welsh Knight
Level 59
Report
yeah,
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 12:43:09


Welsh Knight
Level 59
Report
the past is the past; resperarations!

Edited 4/12/2016 12:43:38
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 12:51:34


Welsh Knight
Level 59
Report
reaparations, I want em!
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 15:05:49


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
Oh wow, Time found a guy who mourns colonialism and you assume that is the general opinion?

I don't think it is the general opinion. I was wondering your view, not the view of Africans.

This goes for both sides I suppose.

I haven't seen any right-wingers shutting down conversation in this thread.

@Teamguns
How is it stupid to wonder if colonialism is better than abject poverty?

Edited 4/12/2016 15:09:24
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 15:34:45


Von Jewburg
Level 35
Report
For Africa, no. For India, yes.

A lot of the political instability in Africa was caused by the rapid evacuation of the colonizers from the continent.

A lot of the educated people, officials, or bureaucrats, were not from Africa. And the Africans were generally the labor used to work the land.

This left behind a lot of chaos when they became independent, which was soon filled by dictators.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 15:56:28


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
@Pulsey

I'm everything but intolerant, I'll quote voltaire here: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

But even though I defend his right to say these stupidities, I won't get away my right to say what I think, but again, that's how liberty works huh? Or is it just liberty when someone starts defecating by the mouth (Trump) and it's authoritarianism when someone disagrees with that person in one meeting?

It appears that we see liberty differently.


How is it stupid to wonder if colonialism is better than abject poverty?


This thought started more then one war. Liberty will always be superior to order in all cases, plus no colonial power really helped the colonies to become richer, it was the other way arround. But again, that's the raw definition of what a colony is.

Edited 4/12/2016 15:59:22
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 16:03:25


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
Liberty will always be superior to order in all cases

I am assuming order involves wealth. That is fair. But if you actually believed it, how do you say colonialism is bad because freedom is better than money, but then say dependence-causing welfare is a good thing? Even if it does help with poverty, it should still be bad, by that logic.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 16:04:51


OxTheAutist 
Level 58
Report
@Pulsey He was simply posting his opinion. Just because he has a different political viewpoint from GeneralPE doesn't mean he has any less right to comment on what he thinks is stupid or not.
Posts 1 - 30 of 42   1  2  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service