Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've only offered one solution. Europe re-colonize it. That's your only solution. Outside of that one solution you give, you just badmouth the continent.
I agree there is a multitude of solutions. I've heard MANY from a multitude of different sources, but I've only heard ONE from you.
And your refusal to acknowledge that Africa was willingly exploiting themselves as long as there was money involved.
If I failed to acknowledge that before, and now that I know that it is important to you, I'll acknowledge it now.
This is human nature. That's how Europe was able to colonize the world. Individuals are motived by money, and you can get them to do your bidding based on that. Europe banked (bigly) on that. That's basically the study of Colonization in a nutshell. The other being 'divide and conquer'.
There is a reason that Africa is divided into conflicting nation-states, where people can't agree anything. That was a design of European colonization.
They had their chance, it was called colonialism. The pros outweighed the cons.
False 1.... And this comment is just blizzard and base on nothing. Mean while in History say other wise.
Quote:
African kings sold their own people into slavery to Western powers so African exploitation by European Powers was clearly not an issue for these African kings.
12.5 million slaves were shipped to the New World during the Slave Trade (North/South America and the Carribbeans). They were not all kidnapped. The vast majority were sold.
If you were an African king, you would’ve sold your own people to slavery and not batted an eye.
Jesus Christ dude...
False 2
African states states did not sell their own people, African states through wars and etc other sold competing kingdoms.
I sitting here with a guy who probably can't name 5 African kingdoms, and tell much about them. and while he's spewing a bunch of counter factual bs.
Quote:
We can say for a fact that a 3rd world country needs massive intervention (or colonization or annexation) by a 1st world power to drastically change the direction of their country. Or we can just wait another 2018 years to see if said country can fix itself by throwing money at it that will be funneled into corrupted politician bank accounts.
When your continent has failed states, you have no options. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Africa tried doing things by itself, it failed horribly no matter who you want to blame.
So how does the world solve it? Colonization. Because nothing sort of it will help these countries. Obama is African. One of the smartest and accomplished black man to ever live, was not able to change his African hometown or African Americans.
This goes back to ignoring.........
You choosing to ignore the kingdoms that were that where before colonization. There were kingdom in Africa just as advance as middle ages and renaissance Europe. You mention Japan, Japan didn't need colonization though trade Japan advance. Several African states could follow that path.
Quote:
The future of Africa is bleak because Africa missed the ship that already sailed.
I don’t foresee any point in the future where western countries or European powers will intervene to the level that needs intervention in all of Africa.
Colonization was that chance. The chance to steadily westernize Africa under European control. That chance is gone.
Calling me racist, that didn’t take long. It’s hilarious you expect me to respond to a person who has resorted to name calling. Must be fun to have a go-to baseless claim when you’re backed into a corner by a black conservative who doesn’t use the past as an excuse to fail. I’m just surprised you haven’t called me an Uncle Tom yet.
Black conservatives like myself and Ben Carson tend to do that.
You not a black conservative, your racist white dude on the internet saying your black thinking that's going to get leverage.
Also your not even responding to my point, Your say some bs then I respond then you jump to another topics, two page later repeat the bs as if I didn't already counter it on the last page. So I do think it's funny you brought up "baseless" because everything your saying is.
And save it, It's one thing to say recent African issues are African fault like corruption which I would agree but it's another thing praise things that generally regard as racist like colonization as something positive. Which is what your doing.
First off European had to kill Africans in wars to colonize Africa and their land. The idea that this "good" for African is immediately idiotic
Traditional African rulers whose ancestors collaborated with European and Arab slave traders should follow Britain and the United States by publicly saying sorry, according to human rights organisations.
The Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria has written to tribal chiefs saying: "We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans, particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless."
The appeal has reopened a sensitive debate over the part some chiefs played in helping to capture their fellow Africans and sell them into bondage as part of the transatlantic slave trade.
The congress argued that the ancestors of the chiefs had helped to raid and kidnap defenceless communities and traded them to Europeans. They should now apologise to "put a final seal to the history of slave trade", it said.
Also your not even responding to my point, Your say some bs then I respond then you jump to another topics, two page later repeat the bs as if I didn't already counter it on the last page.
Co-sign on that! You've summed up my experience interacting with that said poster as well.
He's a master of ignoring counter-arguments that could take the discussion into any depth.
Last edited by Tiger Beer; 04-02-2018 at 05:54 AM..
The very topic of this thread misses the boat.
The advanced nations of the world all got where they were due to profound and fundamental cultural and societal transformation. Because ideas and leaders arose that effectively challenged and deconstructed established traditions and beliefs, both in modes of government and understanding the natural world allowing long stagnant regions to rapidly advance in industry and knowledge. This is in fact how Europe became strong enough to successfully conquer Africa. It is not something feudal, medieval Europe of an earlier age could have done.
In order for Africa to be different than it is today it will need to have enlightened, transformative leadership.
Unless pre-colonial Africa was on cusp of producing a slew of Lee Kuan Yew and Mustafa Ataturk clones (they weren't), which European colonialism stifled, then it really cant be accurately claimed that the Europeans prevented Africa from becoming advanced.
With enlightened leadership, Africa is currently a first world continent with or without colonialism.
Without enlightened leadership, Africa is currently a third world continent with or without colonialism.
If Africa was never colonized it would still be a continent dominated by 3rd world nations. The borders and number of these nations would look very different.
Africa today is not backward because of European colonization, rather it was successfully colonized because it was backward. Unless the absence of colonialism somehow resulted in Africa finding itself with more enlightened leaders (it wouldn't have), the current condition of the continent wouldn't be much different than now.
So Europeans get to decide what’s backwards or not? These little side remarks are why people call out racist!
I’m no Einstein but it’s pretty clear to me Nigeria wants an apology from African rulers who sold their own people into slavery
Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria > City Data Poster
I’m still waiting for the apology myself. The first step into finding a solution is admitting when you yourself were apart of the problem.
Failed
You keep saying "their own" when no where in there it say that.
I keep repeating..... African kingdoms fought "other" African kingdoms and sold them not their own people.
It like saying the French and British fought each other and you keep saying French soilder were Britain own people. You seem to be confused. African is not one place. There different poltical entries I never said African kingdoms treated other kingdoms good. I said African leaders were concern about their kingdom is my point.
The very topic of this thread misses the boat.
The advanced nations of the world all got where they were due to profound and fundamental cultural and societal transformation. Because ideas and leaders arose that effectively challenged and deconstructed established traditions and beliefs, both in modes of government and understanding the natural world allowing long stagnant regions to rapidly advance in industry and knowledge. This is in fact how Europe became strong enough to successfully conquer Africa. It is not something feudal, medieval Europe of an earlier age could have done.
In order for Africa to be different than it is today it will need to have enlightened, transformative leadership.
Unless pre-colonial Africa was on cusp of producing a slew of Lee Kuan Yew and Mustafa Ataturk clones (they weren't), which European colonialism stifled, then it really cant be accurately claimed that the Europeans prevented Africa from becoming advanced.
With enlightened leadership, Africa is currently a first world continent with or without colonialism.
Without enlightened leadership, Africa is currently a third world continent with or without colonialism.
I respond to this later after work, because theirs a lot your not mention about African kingdom pre colonial.
The very topic of this thread misses the boat.
The advanced nations of the world all got where they were due to profound and fundamental cultural and societal transformation. Because ideas and leaders arose that effectively challenged and deconstructed established traditions and beliefs, both in modes of government and understanding the natural world allowing long stagnant regions to rapidly advance in industry and knowledge. This is in fact how Europe became strong enough to successfully conquer Africa. It is not something feudal, medieval Europe of an earlier age could have done.
This is what I talking about with falseness to make a point, that creates a larger wrap world view
. before industrial revolution 1750 to 1910 European nations were not that much ,more advance than Many African, Middle eastern and other Asian states.
"medieval Europe of an earlier age could have done." it literally could not. this butt crack lie
First off all not only would medieval Europe ran into other iron age states in Africa. but Europe was in not positions to. During the middle ages Europe itself was being invade itself by genghis khan from East and the islamic states in Africa and Asia were more advance than mid evil Europe states. Spain was invade by the mores, The Byzantine Empire started to lose the middle east and etc. What the heck are you talking about?
In order for Africa to be different than it is today it will need to have enlightened, transformative leadership.
Unless pre-colonial Africa was on cusp of producing a slew of Lee Kuan Yew and Mustafa Ataturk clones (they weren't), which European colonialism stifled, then it really cant be accurately claimed that the Europeans prevented Africa from becoming advanced.
With enlightened leadership, Africa is currently a first world continent with or without colonialism.
Without enlightened leadership, Africa is currently a third world continent with or without colonialism.
before colonialism you had rising of Empires, A long the west African coast along Sahel, Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa and etc. In order for them to rises there had to be good leadership. the bases your post rest on ignoring this,
If through trade those societies were able to rise and become power states with the technological advancement of their day, with learning the last break though of the industrial revouation what promise is to say they wouldn't advance further? , you have none.
African is not monolithic you likely would had some state doing good and and other doing bad.
As I mention my other post colonialism remove regimes that was loyal to progression of their people, state and culture, and now a bunch borders that don't mean anything. Ethnic tension is high in Africa lot of which these cultures had there own nation.
Imagine European bolder redraw to mean nothing. And you would have French, German, Italians and etc divided from each other and conflicts for influence on the country. The politics of this place would probably be crazy,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
