[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Well I agree with FRDE. The fact is that the most progressive and healthy economy south of the Sahara exists in South Africa which has endured by far the longest colonial (renegade colonial) period of all, (and the shittiest) and the difference is remarkable.
[/QUOTE]
Shittiest? I’d nominate the Congo Free State for that.
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Then why are you advocating colonialism instead of communism for African countries?
[/QUOTE]
You have obviously benefited from the sort of education that allows you to misunderstand what other people say.
I am not suggesting that you are a congenital moron, brought up since post 1967 in a country that is totally different from the one your parents escaped from.
I am not suggesting that you lack the first principles of rhetoric, or that you are an easy victim of sarcasm.
Since this is the Pit I am just suggesting that you are about on the same intellectual level as those morons who did 7/7 (and yes, I know you are Brahmin, but little one - you display the same mindset - you are an easily persuaded bigot)
Now, the obligatory curse: May your mind grow old before your time, may you mistake tolerance and understanding for bigotry and ignorance - and may you be cursed as a bigot when you understand a little. Also may you find yourself mistaken as a refugee, be given a goat, and not have the sense to eat the damn thing.
I hope you are thoroughly insulted - or amused.
I like the Pit - I can obliquely insult people - or even shove it in their face 
Wait, FRDE, I get it, the real curse is that we have to try and figure out your oblique curses, right? It’s like being sworn out by Foul Ole’ Ron, I swear.
So, one racist mouthbreather is lapsing into incomprehensibility, and the other is playing “why can’t we all just … get along?” in a thread that’s all about pitting his ilk? A thread that starts with a big “Fuck You”? I think that’s a good sign.
Oh, and FRDE - I don’t see why I can’t call you on the bullshit, even in GD. That’s why this thread exists - not to discuss you and ME, but to call you the idiotic racist shitstains you have shown yourselves to be. But hey, you can curse my ancestry all you want, I know I’m mixed, I don’t pay it no mind. Nothing I could do about it if I did. You, however, could educate yourself and change, but I guess that isn’t really your inclination. Too bad.
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
WTFA system which stagnates economic development and prevents industrialization and economic diversification is evil. A system which discriminates against non-whites against whites is evil. A system which disrupts traditional food supplies and delivery mechanisms while failing to deliver an alternate replacement system is evil.
But of course you don’t think it’s evil. Apologists for immoral systems never think those systems are evil.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. I hope you don’t think I’m an apologist for colonialism, since I agree with all this. Colonialism was evil, it was immoral, it was everything you say, and a return to colonial rule would make things worse, not better. Not to mention that whatever economic development there was in the colonies was to produce raw materials and cash crops for export to the ruling country.
All I wanted to point out is that the colonial system was not exactly a novel innovation in human history. The idea of getting a bunch of guys together, heading over to the neighboring country and stealing their stuff, raping their women, enslaving the children and burning the houses is a pretty old one. So is heading over and setting yourself up as the new ruling class.
It’s no surpise to me that people don’t like it when foreigners come in and enslave them.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
When have I ever said that we should not have assisted the USSR in Afghanistan - something I believed in 1979 and believe today.
[/QUOTE]
The USSR intervened in Afghanistan to prop up a revolutionary Communist government. Do you seriously think it would have been a good idea for the UK and U.S. to help them do that? And do you think it could have been politically possible for either country?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The USSR intervened in Afghanistan to prop up a revolutionary Communist government. Do you seriously think it would have been a good idea for the UK and U.S. to help them do that? And do you think it could have been politically possible for either country?
[/QUOTE]
Yes and yes
What you need to understand is that things changed about 1979
If this is not G D then apologies, but to the rest of you bottom feeding arseholes this has been obviuos since 1979
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I see, you’ve taken
benefit from ‘Colonial’ administration
as meaning
should have ‘Colonial’ administration imposed on them
Not quite the same thing, as the latter is totally impractical as we’ve seen in Iraq, people really don’t like invaders (benign or otherwise).
Try it like this ‘most people would benefit from eating more roughage’ which is true, but very different from force feeding people bran.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. Your argument, then, is that colonialism would be beneficial for Africa, but we can’t implement because the poor darkies are too ignorant to recognize that we’re doing them a good turn, so there’s no point in trying.
It’s nice to see confirmation of my initial impression of your value as a poster here, FRDE. Keep up the good work.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Yes and yes
What you need to understand is that things changed about 1979
If this is not G D then apologies, but to the rest of you bottom feeding arseholes this has been obviuos since 1979
[/QUOTE]
Whoa, whoa, hold on a sec.
The Soviets recognized the danger of fundamental Islamic militantism about 1979 and that’s why they invaded Afghanistan? Is that what you’re saying?
[QUOTE=Frank]
Whoa, whoa, hold on a sec.
The Soviets recognized the danger of fundamental Islamic militantism about 1979 and that’s why they invaded Afghanistan? Is that what you’re saying?
[/QUOTE]
One Hundred spot on.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Whoa, whoa, hold on a sec.
The Soviets recognized the danger of fundamental Islamic militantism about 1979 and that’s why they invaded Afghanistan? Is that what you’re saying?
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: Strictly speaking, the Soviets did not invade Afghanistan. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (as in Cuba, a Communist regime resulting from a home-grown revolution, not Soviet meddling) invited them in to help put down the rebels. As time went on the Soviets acted more and more like foreign invaders/occupiers, but that’s not how it started.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
One Hundred spot on.
[/QUOTE]
Are you on drugs? Wait, I mean: What drugs are you on?
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
So, one racist mouthbreather is lapsing into incomprehensibility,
[/QUOTE]
A what point was FRDE comprehensible? :dubious:
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nitpick: Strictly speaking, the Soviets did not invade Afghanistan. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (as in Cuba, a Communist regime resulting from a home-grown revolution, not Soviet meddling) invited them in to help put down the rebels. As time went on the Soviets acted more and more like foreign invaders/occupiers, but that’s not how it started.
[/QUOTE]
Translation: a fairly sane Afghani government asked for help
Ah, just good old C2H5OH, then.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Somehow, I don’t think the USSR nor the U.S. was interested in Afghanistan for the opium.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Whoa, whoa, hold on a sec.
The Soviets recognized the danger of fundamental Islamic militantism about 1979 and that’s why they invaded Afghanistan? Is that what you’re saying?
[/QUOTE]
Yes that was the problem - the West did not see it
Chechnya is the border - now bought off
Russia wants to be secure - part of the west - but only with dignity
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Fuck that - we can give them more than they can
FRDE, you can repeat all the lies you like over and over again, they still won’t become true.
The last time we did this in GD, I posted cites and you responded with uncited speculation and assertions. If you’re not going to cite the crap you’re spewing, then why the hell should I listen to it? What qualifications do you have to claim the expertise to speculate on Colonial history? There are posters here who obviously have studied history and don’t have to cite every claim they make. You’re not one of them. You post stupidity after stupidity and expect people to accept it at face value. You want to convince me? Start fucking citing you fucking douchebag.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Since this is the Pit I am just suggesting that you are about on the same intellectual level as those morons who did 7/7 (and yes, I know you are Brahmin, but little one - you display the same mindset - you are an easily persuaded bigot)
[/QUOTE]
Why am I not suprised that of all the insults you could choose, you would choose a borderline racist one? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I knew this, but chose the Moriori as a people who had been nearly completely wiped out as a result of colonialism, in parallel with the NA and Aussie examples. Ultimately, I still blame the colonials - who *chartered them a boat *so they could go and kill and eat the pacifist locals.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to have to take issue with this, mostly because of the timing. In 1835 there was no colonial authority in New Zealand, British or otherwise, and those Europeans who had settled the place ad hoc were often a dubious crowd, game for selling land that didn’t belong to them or chartering massacre excursions for the locals.
It was this kind of laissez faire state of lawlessness that led the Crown to step in in 1840 with the Treaty Of Waitangi, in which Maori were promised Crown protection as British subjects in return for accepting British governance. This wasn’t much done out of self interest by London, either: at that stage in the game there was no indication that a few forested islands on the other side of the world would be anything but a drain on the Treasury.
Yes, the Treaty was a flawed and poorly written document, and a lot of its promises proved illusory once, with an increase in the settler population, the demand for land really took off and war - and the aftermath of illegal confiscations - inevitably began. At the time it was drawn up and offered to the tribes, however, it was a genuine attempt to provide Maori with some measure of security, stability and protection from settler immigrants in the face of the existing lawlessness and the excesses it bred.
Had formal British rule been established five years earlier, in fact, the hapless Moriori would have benefited from colonialism by dint of not being massacred: you might pause to consider that had the British treated the Maori as the Maori treated the Moriori, there wouldn’t be any Maori left to complain about the evils of colonial oppression.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I see, you’ve taken
benefit from ‘Colonial’ administration
as meaning
should have ‘Colonial’ administration imposed on them
Not quite the same thing, as the latter is totally impractical as we’ve seen in Iraq, people really don’t like invaders (benign or otherwise).
[/QUOTE]
So what are you proposing? A system where the Euros advise African countries how to run themselves? Where the Euros offer services and perhaps funding? A system where Africans retain ultimate control?
You know what that’s called? It’s called Foreign Aid, you nitwit. If you want to advocate that nations would be better off by adopting current European legal and economic systems, why don’t you just fucking say so?