Fuck the Neocolonialist. Fuck them hard.

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Mr Dibble , I’m not about to apologize for something someone’s great grandad did.
[/QUOTE]

Not asking you to, haven’t asked anyone to.

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
I still fail to see how placing some of these problem countries under foreign rule would be inherently racist . It isn’t the nature of an african’s biology that is keeping them down, it’s the nature of the culture being unsuitable to meeting a global standard.
[/QUOTE]

“Keeping them down”? “a global standard”? Are you aware of how condescendingly smug you sound? Africans haven’t processed any humans through ovens in the last century, African countries haven’t invaded any countries halfway around the globe this decade (or ever!), Africa isn’t the only place with famine, or warfare, or ethnic cleansing, or dictators, or juntas, or rape camps, or child soldiers.

Why is it always only Africa* that gets pointed out as a suitable candidate for ReColonisation? And never the fucked-up ex-colony that’s Algeria, either. Only sub-saharan examples are ever offered.

I’ll stop thinking it’s inherently racist when racist fucks start being less obviously biased in their criticism, and when the conditions being used as justification are less obviously more universal than uniquely African.

  • OK, and East Timor, that one time
162

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

I mean, they kept people like pigs and slaughtered and ate them, I’m not letting them off lightly. I think the whole affair was possibly the worst recorded actions of human beings I’ve ever encountered, even more so than the Holocaust or Aztec sacrifices. Words failed me, and I’ve never looked on the supposedly-proud Maori native culture the same way since.
[/QUOTE]

Doesn’t that strike you as very much like blaming the Canadians because the US 7th Cavalry attacked the Indians at Little Bighorn?

The Maori aren’t (or weren’t, at the time anyway) one people- they were many separate tribes, with their own customs etc. The tribe which chartered a boat to sail to the Chatham Islands to pillage and plunder had nothing to do with the tribe next door, which by and large got on with their lives, and they were totally separate from the tribe on the other side of the Island who were buying guns off the British with which to fight the tribe further up the coast who’d been hogging all the good fishing spots for the last couple of years.

I can’t imagine what a ship’s captain in Kororareka c. 1835 possibly thought was going to happen if he took a boatload of Maori with guns, spears, and other such paraphernalia on a leisure cruise to some outlying islands of little apparent interest, but somehow I doubt he would seriously have believed they were going fishing or having a cricket match with the inhabitants.

Not to excuse the captain’s actions, but Kororareka (now Russell) prior to 1840 was basically the early Victorian equivalent of the Mos Eisley Spaceport- as has been mentioned, the Chatham Islands incident is exactly why the British stepped in and incorporated New Zealand into the British Empire (Fun Fact: The South Island very nearly became French. The French established a Colony at Akaroa, until the British Navy showed up and said they were welcome to stay, provided they accepted that the South Island was now British Territory, thankyouverymuch. The French settlers accepted, incidentally.)

It’s probably fortunate that the various Maori Wars were fought with single-shot muskets and rifles… one can only imagine the carnage on both sides if they’d been facing off against each other with Winchester Repeating Rifles and Gatling Guns.

163

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Doesn’t that strike you as very much like blaming the Canadians because the US 7th Cavalry attacked the Indians at Little Bighorn?

The Maori aren’t (or weren’t, at the time anyway) one people- they were many separate tribes, with their own customs etc.

[/QUOTE]

I’d always gathered that the “eating people” custom was pretty universal for the Maori. The story of the Moriori was my first encounter with it, but afterwards, I read it wasn’t just a once-off thing for Maori, and it’s that that has made me look at the whole culture differently since.

164

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Not asking you to, haven’t asked anyone to.
“Keeping them down”? “a global standard”? Are you aware of how condescendingly smug you sound? Africans haven’t processed any humans through ovens in the last century, African countries haven’t invaded any countries halfway around the globe this decade (or ever!), Africa isn’t the only place with famine, or warfare, or ethnic cleansing, or dictators, or juntas, or rape camps, or child soldiers.
[/QUOTE]

So what? I never said that there weren’t other non african countries that couldn’t do with foreign intervention either. Pardon me for wanting everyone to be able to enjoy a first world standard of living.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Why is it always only Africa* that gets pointed out as a suitable candidate for ReColonisation? And never the fucked-up ex-colony that’s Algeria, either. Only sub-saharan examples are ever offered.
[/QUOTE]

The OP was about Africa, so I stayed on topic instead of taking side trips to talk about India and the Maori. I’d wager Afrrica is brought up most often because it has the worst conditions, most frequently, and consistently.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’ll stop thinking it’s inherently racist when racist fucks start being less obviously biased in their criticism, and when the conditions being used as justification are less obviously more universal than uniquely African.

  • OK, and East Timor, that one time
    [/QUOTE]

For point one, see above. For point two: a lot of the conditions that cause this sort of discussion are for the most part uniquely African. Africa has different resources then eastern europe, or the middle east. You have to tailor a solution based on the specific case. Africa has a subset of problems that IS uniqely African, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of the natives’ skin.

165

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’d always gathered that the “eating people” custom was pretty universal for the Maori. The story of the Moriori was my first encounter with it, but afterwards, I read it wasn’t just a once-off thing for Maori, and it’s that that has made me look at the whole culture differently since.
[/QUOTE]

It wasn’t a universal thing across Maori culture- North Island Maori had different customs to the South Island Maori. South Island Maori, as far as I have been able to tell, did not eat people, and by the time the British showed up in NZ, the North Island Maori- for the most part- didn’t make a habit of it either, unless the crops had been spectacularly poor.

That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but the image of the Maori as “savage cannibals” is an exaggeration for the most part- the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as with most things in history.

166

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
…
However, the current conditions in many african countries are deplorable, and no amount of white apologetics are going to convinve me to excuse the africans for their hand in maintaining the new status quo. We know we can’t go back, and it seems that not enough of the population has the tools to go forward. I still fail to see how placing some of these problem countries under foreign rule would be inherently racist . It isn’t the nature of an african’s biology that is keeping them down, it’s the nature of the culture being unsuitable to meeting a global standard.
[/QUOTE]

I think you will find very, very few rational Africans excusing the current leaders for the current conditions in their countries. The independence process started over 50 years ago, and we are certainly not blind to the fact that some countries have just not been able to get it right.

But here’s the rub. Africa needs to learn to sort out its own problems. Not meeting your idea of global standards, or feeling sorry for its inhabitants, does not give you the right to colonize that country.

167

[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
I think you will find very, very few rational Africans excusing the current leaders for the current conditions in their countries. The independence process started over 50 years ago, and we are certainly not blind to the fact that some countries have just not been able to get it right.

But here’s the rub. Africa needs to learn to sort out its own problems. Not meeting your idea of global standards, or feeling sorry for its inhabitants, does not give you the right to colonize that country.
[/QUOTE]

Good points, The problem is that the world community really isn’t sure how to deal with Africa in general. A lot of Aid that is sent is stolen or misappropriated, and yet it rubs us to see people sufferring when the conditions could be improved.

It isn’t about Africa needing to measure up to mine or anyone elses standard. It is about Africa needing to clean itself up enough for the rest of the world to willing to deal with it in the manner that will help it grow. I’d love for those troubled countries to sort things out for themselves, but some of them as you’ve said have had a long hard road going to nowhere. While I don’t feel that foreign intervention is the BEST solution, a little law, order, and infrastucture couldn’t HURT those particularily troubled areas.

168

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
So what? I never said that there weren’t other non african countries that couldn’t do with foreign intervention either. Pardon me for wanting everyone to be able to enjoy a first world standard of living.

The OP was about Africa, so I stayed on topic instead of taking side trips to talk about India and the Maori. I’d wager Afrrica is brought up most often because it has the worst conditions, most frequently, and consistently.

[/QUOTE]

I’d wager that’s only a recent (post-WWII/possibly70s ) phenomenon, and it’s shortsighted to claim that Africa’s always been the worst. Both South America and Asia have been worse in the past, and it wasn’t recolonisation that made them better.

I’m the OP, and I saw no problem with dragging Colonialism is general into it, and we have, but you didn’t keep up.
QUOTE=Acid Lamp]

For point one, see above. For point two: a lot of the conditions that cause this sort of discussion are for the most part uniquely African. Africa has different resources then eastern europe, or the middle east. You have to tailor a solution based on the specific case. Africa has a subset of problems that IS uniqely African, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of the natives’ skin.
[/QUOTE]

I’d love to know what, exactly, you think is so unique about Africa. Please, enlighten me.

169

Well, somewhere has to be the worst, and as of 2007 Africa is the worst. Sure, go back a few decades and Africa doesn’t stand out. China was tearing itself apart under Mao. India was doing pretty awfully for a while. Latin America wasn’t much better.

The problem is that Africa hasn’t improved the way a lot of regions have, and in many ways is getting worse. And the trouble is that no one has any good ideas on how to improve things, because the countries and regions that did improve did so because of internal reforms, not because Western countries or NGOs figured out ways to help them. And regions are important, because when neighboring countries are doing well they drag you up and provide an example to copy, when neighboring countries are doing poorly they drag you down and export their problems.

The best thing we can do is not so much to figure out ways to help Africa, but rather to figure out ways to avoid screwing Africa over, and let them figure out how to help themselves, because we certainly can’t do it.

170

If you think Colonialism is gone, you are quite mistaken.

Want to know who maintains the road I use to get between the only two cities up here? Not the government. A French cotton company. Most of the other major roads here are maintained by foreign interests.

You know what? The road still sucks. It works just well enough to get cotton out of this country and on ships to Europe. As soon as harvest season is over, it’s left to rot. The Europeans (Lebanese, Chinese, Americans, Whatever) are here for one reason- to get wealth out of this country and into theirs. That isn’t helping this place on bit.

Colonialism. Didn’t work. Still doesn’t work.

171

[QUOTE=even sven]
Want to know who maintains the road I use to get between the only two cities up here? Not the government. A French cotton company. Most of the other major roads here are maintained by foreign interests.

You know what? The road still sucks.
[/QUOTE]

Why doesn’t the government maintain it?

172

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’d wager that’s only a recent (post-WWII/possibly70s ) phenomenon, and it’s shortsighted to claim that Africa’s always been the worst. Both South America and Asia have been worse in the past, and it wasn’t recolonisation that made them better.
[/QUOTE]

Recent or not, it happens to be the worst of the bunch NOW and thus most deserving of our attentions. You are correct about S.A. and Asia and i’ll not argue the point. What helped them improve was a strong government that enforced order long enough to build an economic base.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’d love to know what, exactly, you think is so unique about Africa. Please, enlighten me.
[/QUOTE]

Problem one: Unlike S.A. or Asia, most of africa has a harsh cyclical climate that doesn’t agree with most crops. By crops, I mean FOOD crops, not coffee or other export goods. MOST of the tribes were not made up of large scale farming communities. They have little to no training, or culture in heavy farming. This is a natural stumbling block in building an agricultural base. This base is necessary to fueling cities and governmental centers. Subsistence agriculture won’t allow for a stable food base for a large urban populace. Nor will herding.

Problem two: Certainly not unique to Africa, but a massive issue nonetheless, Africa is at the moment politically troubled and violent. A lot of the countries either don’t have the police force, or it is too corrupt, or too sparse to enforce order. The problem is magnified by the large amount of undeveloped land in Africa. Borders are extremely porous and local warlords often run things with the tacit endorsement of the government. Weapons are easy to obtain and anyone who can round up enough money or cronies can become a big problem.

Problem three: Africa is unable to currently harness and distribute it’s mineral wealth. The means of production are mostly foreign run operations that are not giving much back to the community. This is an example of a BAD effect of colonialism.

Problem four: Many, Many, africans do not identify themselves by their country, but rather by family or tribal allegience. This, combined with easy access to weapons allows tribal feuds to continue rather unabated. Again, not unique to Africa but it is a BIG problem there.

Problem five: Poor education and limited access to medical care.

Mostly what is **unique ** to Africa IS Africa itself. it’s natural resources and geography. People are people no matter where they are. If you have a under-educated, poor population that is prone to violence you are going to have a hard time keeping order. What a foreign occupation MIGHT accomplish is the keeping of peace long enough to get a core of the native population educated and trained to learn to solve their own problems, using what they have at hand.

So if anything, Neo-colonialists are ethnocentric classists, not racists.

173

[QUOTE=FRDE]
I suppose one could call me a ‘culturist’.
[/QUOTE]

Sure. If we can parse “culturist” to mean “racist asshole without a clue,” I’m all for it.

174

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Good points, The problem is that the world community really isn’t sure how to deal with Africa in general.
[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps it’s that they don’t want to. There are many things that they - we - could do. For starters we could drop the debt and make a phenomenal difference, permitting national governments the resources and stability they need to do things like, say, fix roads. Few people disagree that dropping the debt would make a huge positive difference in Africa. And yet, it isn’t happening.

We could end agricultural subsidies in our developed nations that kill markets for African farmers. We could stop supporting African politicians, since we obviously can’t tell the difference between the ones that are good (for ordinary Africans) and the ones who aren’t. At the same time we should pay attention when some of them hack others to pieces with machetes. We could stop allowing our corporations to exploit their natural environment by extracting the goods out of it and replacing them with waste. We could force international financial institutions to stop placing totally unreasonable demands on African economies that they have to follow because of their (understatement alert!) weak bargaining position. As consumers, we could stop buying new diamonds and aluminum and things that cause wars and/or massive environmental pollution over there. We could object in the strongest possible terms - strong enough that our religious and political leaders are forced to hear - to “aid” programs that discourage the use of condoms. We could open our arms to African refugees and immigrants, so they would be able to send money back home (and possibly improve themselves through education and career development) instead of working like indentured slaves in our taxi cabs and fast food restaurants.

There are many things we could do, but we don’t. We’re not stupid. We’re just greedy. Don’t tell me we don’t know what to do.

175

[QUOTE=cowgirl]

There are many things we could do, but we don’t. We’re not stupid. We’re just greedy. Don’t tell me we don’t know what to do.
[/QUOTE]

Well said. All of the things you listed would make an enormous difference undoubtedly. Let’s be careful not to confuse greed with caution though. Cancelling all debts would set a pretty poor example. I don’t like the idea of a country being able to declare bankruptcy and simply be relieved of all debts. There needs to accountability at some level.

176

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Words failed me, and I’ve never looked on the supposedly-proud Maori native culture the same way since.
[/QUOTE]

It might be simpler to accept that all cultures, European or not, have their dark sides. Historically, when one well-armed, organised and equipped people, whether black, white or brown, has met a weaker adversary with something that they’ve wanted, theft and violence has ensued.

It ain’t right, it ain’t pretty, but it’s the nature of humanity. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that any given culture will progress to the point where it can question and criticise its values and behaviour and even attempt to remedy its own shortcomings, both current and past.

177

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Well said. All of the things you listed would make an enormous difference undoubtedly. Let’s be careful not to confuse greed with caution though. Cancelling all debts would set a pretty poor example. I don’t like the idea of a country being able to declare bankruptcy and simply be relieved of all debts. There needs to accountability at some level.
[/QUOTE]

So does the accountability only begin after all the cost of Colonialism is discounted? What about what Africa is “owed” by the West?

And your list of what’s unique to Africa included a whole lot of caveats about “not unique to Africa” - I’ve never denied Africa has problems, just that to suggest that there’s something unique about its problems, that deserves a unique treatment, you’d have to bring a whole lot more than that list -
Point 1 isn’t true- *most *of South America and Asia don’t take to most food crop farming so well, either, and there are large parts of Africa that could grow food crops if they weren’t growing cash ones. Zimbabwe used to be a regional breadbasket, for example.
Point 2, as you say, not unique
Point 3, not unique.
Point 4, not unique
Point 5, not unique.

As for your conclusion, if old-style colonialism didn’t accomplish upliftment, whay should new efforts do any better?

So to sum up, there’s nothing unique about Africa, so proposing a unique solution for it can only derive from some other underlying percieved difference between Africa and the rest of the fucked-up countries. I still see racism. Calling it “ethnocentric classism” is a non-starter when the ethnicity doing the -isming is all White, and the ethnicity being -ismed is Black. “Racism” is easier to say, and just as fitting.

178

[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
It might be simpler to accept that all cultures, European or not, have their dark sides. Historically, when one well-armed, organised and equipped people, whether black, white or brown, has met a weaker adversary with something that they’ve wanted, theft and violence has ensued.

It ain’t right, it ain’t pretty, but it’s the nature of humanity. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that any given culture will progress to the point where it can question and criticise its values and behaviour and even attempt to remedy its own shortcomings, both current and past.
[/QUOTE]

I’d be quite content to leave it at “people are bastards, but we’ve come so far” if some people weren’t so quick to leap right back there. How are we supposed to say we don’t want to have Colonialism if we don’t point out the evil it’s done? It’s a rhetorical fallacy to say that because I point out one evil, I have to point them all out. I’m discussing calls for renewed Colonialism, so it’s evils associated with Colonialism that I point out. You saying “other people could be just as evil” doesn’t lessen the evils associated with Colonialism one whit. You could try and show, as you have, that those particular evils were unrelated to Colonialism in any way, but I don’t think you’ve done a good job of that.

And my brown ancestors never cooked and killed their fellow man, as far back as I can find out. That’s just subhuman.

179

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
This is bullshit. The trade regime was dictated by the British to the detriment of the Indian economy. And any laws that Indians could implement were always subject to override by the British. Post a cite that the same wasn’t true in most of colonial Africa.
[/quote]

Like I give a shit? as Empires go, of course there’s a detrement to the host, but what you’re doing is taking isolated examples of our Colonial history and applying it as a gross generalisation of Empire. The Indian government is directly modelled on the UK legal system and UK Government, they have a labour pool of English speaking nationals, and a railway system all over the country which was built by, yes you guess it, the British (which is the largest maintained in the world)
Gandhi went to Oxford for chrissakes, we’re not French or Russian, proactively keeping the populace dumb so they’re ripe for manipulation. I’ll remind you too that the British were usually invited into areas in India by Raj princes themselves. To assume that Colonialism is just a one way street in which a foreign power just comes in Normandy style and takes over, is ridiculous. The irony of this is that most of the native rulers wanted the British there.

That’s right, quote me out of context and assume I’m saying all Indians were dumb motherfuckers before we arrived. Stupid bastard. French Colonialists accepted their natives into their prestigious universities and enabled them to enact local laws and business right?

In name only, the UK has a constitutional monarchy, but not a cabinet full of the Queens nephews, sons or daughters. Deeds by actions, not by words. Duh.

Was I even replying to you? Is your username BrainGlutton? If you’re gonna throw accusations, try not typing oxymoronic statements dickhead.

‘Possibility’ doesn’t translate into actual reality. I’m sure 2 million dead Afghans will thank you for that. If Colonialism doesn’t work, it explains why the Communist ‘Empire’ is pretty much dead.

180

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

Calling it “ethnocentric classism” is a non-starter when the ethnicity doing the -isming is all White, and the ethnicity being -ismed is Black. “Racism” is easier to say, and just as fitting.
[/QUOTE]

You know, up until this point i’ve been civil. In all seriousness, go fuck yourself. It’s racist pricks like yourself who continue to harp on the atrocities of past generations as an excuse for a lack of personal accountability. SO a white person cannot say anything about any other culture if the inhabitants happen to have a different skin tone. :dubious:

Again, Die in a fire. Not EVERY person of caucasion descent is responsible for slavery, or has a contiguous culture. I’m of slavic and central asian ancestery. My forebearers didn’t arrive in the USA until the 1940’s. ME and Mine had NOTHING, NOTHING to do with any of the history that you seem to feel demonizes contemporary whites. I’ve had enough of trying to argue with a juvenile fuckwit who can’t admit simple facts, nor be bothered to look up or apply the definition of the term “racist”.