France aknowledges colonial era repression in Cameroon

[joluoto]

Macron acknowledges French colonial repression in Cameroon​

Good, but these crimes against the peoples of the colonial empires should have been aknowledged a long time ago. France also aknowledges crimes the French comitted after 1960 (when Cameroon was independent). But it's good that France at least now admits they caused alot of damage and comitted crimes against humanity in Africa.

 

[Individual]

And South East Asia?

 

[Gozaburo]

Macron acknowledges French colonial repression in Cameroon​

Good, but these crimes against the peoples of the colonial empires should have been aknowledged a long time ago. France also aknowledges crimes the French comitted after 1960 (when Cameroon was independent). But it's good that France at least now admits they caused alot of damage and comitted crimes against humanity in Africa.

Good gesture, if largely performative. French occupation of Cameroon was quite mild by colonial standards and even more mild by standards of historical empire.

In any case, if I was a Cameroonian I’d now be more interested in military, economic, and diplomatic protection from my former colonial master as a hedge against local warlords getting poached by Russian PMCs and the Russian Africa Corp.

The best thing the French can do now is work toward removing Russian influence from former colonial holdings and establishing unilateral trade agreements with at-risk nations.

 

[Tigerace117]

Good gesture, if largely performative. French occupation of Cameroon was quite mild by colonial standards and even more mild by standards of historical empire.

In any case, if I was a Cameroonian I’d now be more interested in military, economic, and diplomatic protection from my former colonial master as a hedge against local warlords getting poached by Russian PMCs and the Russian Africa Corp.

The best thing the French can do now is work toward removing Russian influence from former colonial holdings and establishing unilateral trade agreements with at-risk nations.

Fun fact: the countries France oppressed for centuries largely aren’t interested in French “protection” and don’t see the latest round of hysterical wailing about Russia as important given France spent the last century wailing about Russia as an excuse to keep its jackboot firmly pressed on their necks.

The idea French rule was “mild” is directly contradicted by the brutality of French troops during the Hidden War.

 

[Felis Leo]

Macron acknowledges French colonial repression in Cameroon​

Good, but these crimes against the peoples of the colonial empires should have been aknowledged a long time ago. France also aknowledges crimes the French comitted after 1960 (when Cameroon was independent). But it's good that France at least now admits they caused alot of damage and comitted crimes against humanity in Africa.

France continued backing monstrous, corrupt regimes regimes in Africa until very recently, that is, up until many of their vassal governments were overthrown.

 

[Felis Leo]

Good gesture, if largely performative. French occupation of Cameroon was quite mild by colonial standards and even more mild by standards of historical empire.

In any case, if I was a Cameroonian I’d now be more interested in military, economic, and diplomatic protection from my former colonial master as a hedge against local warlords getting poached by Russian PMCs and the Russian Africa Corp.

That would presume you had been among the the lucky and privileged Cameroonian caste who had benefitted from colonial rule, and not a member of the vast Cameroonian underclass that French neo-colonial parasitism had helped repress and dispossess.

The best thing the French can do now is work toward removing Russian influence from former colonial holdings and establishing unilateral trade agreements with at-risk nations.

Hardly anyone actually wants the French ruling over them. Those who do are seen as Quisling collaborators.

 

[Gozaburo]

That would presume you had been among the the lucky and privileged Cameroonian caste who had benefitted from colonial rule, and not a member of the vast Cameroonian underclass that French neo-colonial parasitism had helped repress and dispossess.

To be fair, I'm not sure if this was any different than the conditions prior to colonialism, not that this justifies colonialism even if that were the case.

Hardly anyone actually wants the French ruling over them. Those who do are seen as Quisling collaborators.

Unfortunately we rarely get to think in these terms when we discuss the third word. It's often a choice between a sympathetic, if still a bit exploitative, Western power and a Russo-Chinese bloc propping up a Junta so that they can strip mine Bauxite and Uranium with imported labor.

 

[Tigerace117]

To be fair, I'm not sure if this was any different than the conditions prior to colonialism, not that this justifies colonialism even if that were the case.



Unfortunately we rarely get to think in these terms when we discuss the third word. It's often a choice between a sympathetic, if still a bit exploitative, Western power and a Russo-Chinese bloc propping up a Junta so that they can strip mine Bauxite and Uranium with imported labor.

The idea that the Western colonial powers are “sympathetic” is utterly laughable on every level. Trying to pretend like the West doesn’t exploit African countries for resources right up until the present is comical.

 

[Gozaburo]

The idea that the Western colonial powers are “sympathetic” is utterly laughable on every level. Trying to pretend like the West doesn’t exploit African countries for resources right up until the present is comical.

So actually I did say they were still exploitative, which is the case in pretty much every instance where there is a superior power and an inferior power. You'll find relationships are quite unilateral.

The question - in a situation where total autonomy is not possible - is it better to be exploited by a liberal democracy which is at least attempting to be fair and balanced or is it better to be exploited by more contemporary forms of colonialism, which are debatably worse because they don't build infrastructure, political institutions, or even produce much labor. They just strip mine and leave.

 

[Tigerace117]

So actually I did say they were still exploitative, which is the case in pretty much every instance where there is a superior power and an inferior power. You'll find relationships are quite unilateral.

The question - in a situation where total autonomy is not possible - is it better to be exploited by a liberal democracy which is at least attempting to be fair and balanced or is it better to be exploited by more contemporary forms of colonialism, which are debatably worse because they don't build infrastructure, political institutions, or even produce much labor. They just strip mine and leave.

You said the Western powers were “sympathetic”. Nothing about Western neocolonialism is “sympathetic”, which is why so many of France’s former puppets have expelled them, and why all that saber rattling about a Western backed invasion to restore pliant puppet states in places like Burkina Faso never got off the ground.

Being brutally oppressed and exploited by a “liberal democracy” is not, in fact, noticeably better than the alternatives.

Yeah, those liberal democracies sure produced such great and lasting institutions in Africa. That’s why most countries there were totally fine once their overlords were forced out

The West has been having fits over China building infrastructure across Africa for over a decade, so that narrative isn’t even true in the first place.

 

[bomberfox]

To be fair, I'm not sure if this was any different than the conditions prior to colonialism, not that this justifies colonialism even if that were the case.



Unfortunately we rarely get to think in these terms when we discuss the third word. It's often a choice between a sympathetic, if still a bit exploitative, Western power and a Russo-Chinese bloc propping up a Junta so that they can strip mine Bauxite and Uranium with imported labor.

That is an interesting question. Im not knowledgeable about the history of Camaroon but ill see about comparing the conditions.

 

[Gozaburo]

The West has been having fits over China building infrastructure across Africa for over a decade, so that narrative isn’t even true in the first place.

Except China isn't really "building infrastructure". It is building extremely localized industries and paying off governments to import mostly Chinese labor to strip mine local resources. At least we could say that colonists built governments and institutions while being exploitative.

Yeah, those liberal democracies sure produced such great and lasting institutions in Africa. That’s why most countries there were totally fine once their overlords were forced out

I guess you'd need to define "fine". Africa is at least no worse than it was when the Europeans first stepped on its shores. Personally I think it's a good thing if Western powers take interest in fostering trade and diplomatic agreements.

Being brutally oppressed and exploited by a “liberal democracy” is not, in fact, noticeably better than the alternatives.

Actually it is for a number of reasons, but lets stick to what's most pragmatic. Even if I conceded that exploitation from the liberal French is equal to fascist Chinese, exploitation is going to happen regardless. Pragmatically speaking it's better if that exploitation was done by Western empires and its allies than its enemies.

You said the Western powers were “sympathetic”. Nothing about Western neocolonialism is “sympathetic”, which is why so many of France’s former puppets have expelled them, and why all that saber rattling about a Western backed invasion to restore pliant puppet states in places like Burkina Faso never got off the ground.

I'd say there's plenty of sympathy. Africa is extremely dependent on Western food and medical aid. Without it something like a quarter of the entire continent would just die. There are many relationships like this, but I understand that it's a difficult concept to understand for a low time preference third worldist dogmatically committed to hating the West.

 

[Tigerace117]

Except China isn't really "building infrastructure". It is building extremely localized industries and paying off governments to import mostly Chinese labor to strip mine local resources. At least we could say that colonists built governments and institutions while being exploitative.



I guess you'd need to define "fine". Africa is at least no worse than it was when the Europeans first stepped on its shores. Personally I think it's a good thing if Western powers take interest in fostering trade and diplomatic agreements.



Actually it is for a number of reasons, but lets stick to what's most pragmatic. Even if I conceded that exploitation from the liberal French is equal to fascist Chinese, exploitation is going to happen regardless. Pragmatically speaking it's better if that exploitation was done by Western empires and its allies than its enemies.



I'd say there's plenty of sympathy. Africa is extremely dependent on Western food and medical aid. Without it something like a quarter of the entire continent would just die. There are many relationships like this, but I understand that it's a difficult concept to understand for a low time preference third worldist dogmatically committed to hating the West.

Except no, you couldn’t, because the “institutions” the West supposedly built were never anything more than flimsy covers for the systematic looting of anything valuable they could.

The Belgians, for example, practically carried off anything valuable that wasn’t nailed to the ground when they left the Congo, and then came back with crowbars for that as well.

That’s directly contradicted by the fact basically no African nations outside of the settler colonial dominated South Africa and “Rhodesia” were prepared in any way for independence. Which, of course, directly led to those countries falling into chaos as they tried to figure out everything out on the fly while the West smugly pontificated in the distance about how Africa had always needed their “paternal guidance” or whatever.

Oh really? Because the Congo “Free State” alone was exponentially worse than anything pre Europeans showing up.

Unfortunately for you the Africans don’t seem to agree that being brutally exploited is “better” when the exploiter spends all its time lying about “freedom and equality”.

The West is simply desperate to avoid even more refugees having to flee their homes, judging by the endless tantrums over refugees from the Middle East and Africa arriving in Europe. That’s not “sympathy”.

I don’t give a shit that the West still mourns for the days when it was able to brutally oppress millions of people with impunity instead of being repeatedly humiliated when they try to continue doing so. There’s no obligation to pretend a Western jackboot is somehow “better” than anyone else’s.

 

[Gozaburo]

Except no, you couldn’t, because the “institutions” the West supposedly built were never anything more than flimsy covers for the systematic looting of anything valuable they could.

The Belgians, for example, practically carried off anything valuable that wasn’t nailed to the ground when they left the Congo, and then came back with crowbars for that as well.

That’s directly contradicted by the fact basically no African nations outside of the settler colonial dominated South Africa and “Rhodesia” were prepared in any way for independence. Which, of course, directly led to those countries falling into chaos as they tried to figure out everything out on the fly while the West smugly pontificated in the distance about how Africa had always needed their “paternal guidance” or whatever.

Obviously the Belgians and Portuguese were particularly bad, the British and French less so. But that's not really relevant to the point I'm making in 2025.

Oh really? Because the Congo “Free State” alone was exponentially worse than anything pre Europeans showing up.

Well actually it's hard to say because it's not like there's a ton of written record on the interior of Africa prior to the Europeans. I suppose your correct in the sense that European technology and logistics allowed for the scaling of human suffering, but that seems to be more a function of technology than anything else.

Unfortunately for you the Africans don’t seem to agree that being brutally exploited is “better” when the exploiter spends all its time lying about “freedom and equality”.

The West is simply desperate to avoid even more refugees having to flee their homes, judging by the endless tantrums over refugees from the Middle East and Africa arriving in Europe. That’s not “sympathy”.

Sure, the primary motivating factor might be due to refugees but I'm not sure if that really matters. The fact remains that the West spends an eye-watering amount on aid every year and supports liberal and democratic governments in the region. The same could not be said of Russia's PMCs and Chinese corporations.

I don’t give a shit that the West still mourns for the days when it was able to brutally oppress millions of people with impunity instead of being repeatedly humiliated when they try to continue doing so. There’s no obligation to pretend a Western jackboot is somehow “better” than anyone else’s.

Morally speaking I'm not sure if it's better. I'd argue the billions in aid and support of democratic governments is better, but I suppose there's a moral case for starvation and military Juntas in tankie world. Outside of the moral case, there's a geopolitical case that wealth and minerals in the hands of the West are better because 1. we live in the west and 2. this incentivizes more aid and development.

 

[Tigerace117]

Obviously the Belgians and Portuguese were particularly bad, the British and French less so. But that's not really relevant to the point I'm making in 2025.



Well actually it's hard to say because it's not like there's a ton of written record on the interior of Africa prior to the Europeans. I suppose your correct in the sense that European technology and logistics allowed for the scaling of human suffering, but that seems to be more a function of technology than anything else.



Sure, the primary motivating factor might be due to refugees but I'm not sure if that really matters. The fact remains that the West spends an eye-watering amount on aid every year and supports liberal and democratic governments in the region. The same could not be said of Russia's PMCs and Chinese corporations.



Morally speaking I'm not sure if it's better. I'd argue the billions in aid and support of democratic governments is better, but I suppose there's a moral case for starvation and military Juntas in tankie world. Outside of the moral case, there's a geopolitical case that wealth and minerals in the hands of the West are better because 1. we live in the west and 2. this incentivizes more aid and development.

Tell that to the Kenyans. Hell, tell that to the Boers. The British Empire pioneered the concentration camp as a way of breaking the will of a local population so its natural resources could be safely looted.

The same goes for French actions in places like Algeria, for that matter.

The legacy of colonialism absolutely still effects countries today, and, “surprisingly”, many aren’t interested in their former “master” getting to continue to profit no matter how much that “master” wails about democracy and freedom or whatever.

The Belgians showing up and unleashing an industrial scale glorified slaving operation that killed millions of people is something the Congo had never seen anything close to.

And that isn’t even getting into how the West assassinated the Congo’s leader and helped install a brutal kleptocrat—

Not to mention the efforts of Western backed mercenaries to carve off Katanga and loot it for all it was worth—

because something something Russia, leading to decades of addition suffering that they still haven’t come close to recovering from.

It was the Russians and Cubans who helped the people of Africa defend themselves against the apartheid regime in South Africa while the West helped hunt down Nelson Mandela. Some commitment to “freedom and liberalism and democracy”

Gee dude, given the West has destroyed more democracies than Russia or China and it’s not even remotely close, the sputtering about “tankies” is worthless. Where was this supposed worry about “democracy” when the West was propping up fascist juntas on a continental scale, again?

Unfortunately for you, the people who the resources belong to pretty firmly don’t agree. Sounds like you’ll just have to get over it.

 

[bomberfox]

Obviously the Belgians and Portuguese were particularly bad, the British and French less so. But that's not really relevant to the point I'm making in 2025.



Well actually it's hard to say because it's not like there's a ton of written record on the interior of Africa prior to the Europeans. I suppose your correct in the sense that European technology and logistics allowed for the scaling of human suffering, but that seems to be more a function of technology than anything else.



Sure, the primary motivating factor might be due to refugees but I'm not sure if that really matters. The fact remains that the West spends an eye-watering amount on aid every year and supports liberal and democratic governments in the region. The same could not be said of Russia's PMCs and Chinese corporations.



Morally speaking I'm not sure if it's better. I'd argue the billions in aid and support of democratic governments is better, but I suppose there's a moral case for starvation and military Juntas in tankie world. Outside of the moral case, there's a geopolitical case that wealth and minerals in the hands of the West are better because 1. we live in the west and 2. this incentivizes more aid and development.

China will likely fall into the same trappings of expanding their capitalist enterprises in there. Chinese capitalists go there because they dont have to follow Chinese law there.

 

[Gozaburo]

Tell that to the Kenyans. Hell, tell that to the Boers. The British Empire pioneered the concentration camp as a way of breaking the will of a local population so its natural resources could be safely looted.

The same goes for French actions in places like Algeria, for that matter.

The legacy of colonialism absolutely still effects countries today, and, “surprisingly”, many aren’t interested in their former “master” getting to continue to profit no matter how much that “master” wails about democracy and freedom or whatever.

I'm sure most people in Africa value sovereignty. In a perfect world, I'd say that would be great. But we live in an imperfect world where the strong on some level must always rule. The question is should the rulers be us or someone else. I personally prefer us!

because something something Russia, leading to decades of addition suffering that they still haven’t come close to recovering from.

It was the Russians and Cubans who helped the people of Africa defend themselves against the apartheid regime in South Africa while the West helped hunt down Nelson Mandela. Some commitment to “freedom and liberalism and democracy”

You say this as-if China wasn't simultaneously getting rid of or oppressing anyone who wasn't Han, or while Russia wasn't causing mass death in 20th century Ukraine and propping up other dictatorships responsible for the deaths of millions. That Russia pragmatically supported a handful of revolutionaries who weren't completely murderous seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

Unfortunately for you, the people who the resources belong to pretty firmly don’t agree. Sounds like you’ll just have to get over it.

Unfortunately for them, they don't get a choice. They're weak and disorganized and so their sovereignty is always going to be in contention. I think Western backing - considering all of the aid and infrastructure we already spend billions on - is demonstrably superior to Russian and Chinese support.

You can continue living in the geopolitical reality of the 19th and 20th century, but it's not going to tell you anything about the state of things today. Bitching about how the Anglosphere owned black slaves doesn't change the fact that they effectively ended the practice globally (admittedly, for practical, not moral reasons) and support the African continent with hundreds of billions in aid. This is a far more significant commitment than anything the East has offered or could offer going forward.

And as I said - even if NONE of that were the case, it is pragmatic and in the self-interest of the West to dominate influence on such a resource rich continent.

 

[Gozaburo]

China will likely fall into the same trappings of expanding their capitalist enterprises in there. Chinese capitalists go there because they dont have to follow Chinese law there.

I think they go there because they want an empire like the United States has. They want to be resource-independent and they want to be influential in different geopolitical spheres. That's going to be super important if they ever want to uncouple themselves from the Chimerica economic strategy and declare independence from the model of global liberal capitalism.

 

[Tigerace117]

I'm sure most people in Africa value sovereignty. In a perfect world, I'd say that would be great. But we live in an imperfect world where the strong on some level must always rule. The question is should the rulers be us or someone else. I personally prefer us!



You say this as-if China wasn't simultaneously getting rid of or oppressing anyone who wasn't Han, or while Russia wasn't causing mass death in 20th century Ukraine and propping up other dictatorships responsible for the deaths of millions. That Russia pragmatically supported a handful of revolutionaries who weren't completely murderous seems to be the exception that proves the rule.



Unfortunately for them, they don't get a choice. They're weak and disorganized and so their sovereignty is always going to be in contention. I think Western backing - considering all of the aid and infrastructure we already spend billions on - is demonstrably superior to Russian and Chinese support.

You can continue living in the geopolitical reality of the 19th and 20th century, but it's not going to tell you anything about the state of things today. Bitching about how the Anglosphere owned black slaves doesn't change the fact that they effectively ended the practice globally (admittedly, for practical, not moral reasons) and support the African continent with hundreds of billions in aid. This is a far more significant commitment than anything the East has offered or could offer going forward.

And as I said - even if NONE of that were the case, it is pragmatic and in the self-interest of the West to dominate influence on such a resource rich continent.

The people in places like Burkina Faso are apparently strong enough to expel their would be Western neo-colonial overlords, so by your own standard the West should simply leave them alone.

Yeah, the West has been saying that for centuries. Funny how few of the people who have to sit under the West’s boot seem to agree with that.

Yeah, the West happily backed China itself in the name of something something Russia, going so far as to support the Khmer Rouge when the Soviets’ Vietnamese ally invaded and toppled them.

Oh, and apartheid South Africa was actively working on sterilizing its entire non white population, making them significantly worse than basically any regime Russia has backed….ever, pretty much.

Except they pretty clearly do have a choice, and they are exercising it, because “you have no choice give us your resources or else” is not a convincing argument.

Especially since their “disorganization” and “weakness” is largely the West’s fault in the first place. The Congo would likely look very different if the West didn’t decide to murder Patrice Lumumba

…..the Congo Free State’s atrocities occurred decades after slavery was officially ended by “the Anglosphere”.

Other than the East helping them gain and keep their freedom in the first place, to name just one glaring example.

The West can go on and on about how it wants to loot countries in the “name of freedom” or whatever, but that was the exact argument used to “justify” colonialism the first time around….

And nobody in Africa has forgotten that.

 

[Gozaburo]

The people in places like Burkina Faso are apparently strong enough to expel their would be Western neo-colonial overlords, so by your own standard the West should simply leave them alone.

Yeah, the West has been saying that for centuries. Funny how few of the people who have to sit under the West’s boot seem to agree with that.

I'll just point out - once again - that it's striking you're unable to engage in geopolitics within the 21st century context.

Except they pretty clearly do have a choice, and they are exercising it, because “you have no choice give us your resources or else” is not a convincing argument.

Certainly they have a choice with who to side with... whether it's their material interest or not is a different question. True sovereignty isn't really possible for weak nations, who will always have a liege lord.

Especially since their “disorganization” and “weakness” is largely the West’s fault in the first place. The Congo would likely look very different if the West didn’t decide to murder Patrice Lumumba

I'm not sure that it is. Africa was disorganized and weak when Europeans first discovered the interior. Surprise - it seems the issue is more complex than just cartoonishly evil Western powers.

The West can go on and on about how it wants to loot countries in the “name of freedom” or whatever, but that was the exact argument used to “justify” colonialism the first time around….

And nobody in Africa has forgotten that.

I'd say it's a quite a bit different, actually. Mostly one-sided aid agreements to the tune of billions of dollars in addition to diplomatic support and favorable trade agreements seems like a pretty solid deal which is explicitly different from colonialism.

 

[Tigerace117]

I'll just point out - once again - that it's striking you're unable to engage in geopolitics within the 21st century context.



Certainly they have a choice with who to side with... whether it's their material interest or not is a different question. True sovereignty isn't really possible for weak nations, who will always have a liege lord.



I'm not sure that it is. Africa was disorganized and weak when Europeans first discovered the interior. Surprise - it seems the issue is more complex than just cartoonishly evil Western powers.



I'd say it's a quite a bit different, actually. Mostly one-sided aid agreements to the tune of billions of dollars in addition to diplomatic support and favorable trade agreements seems like a pretty solid deal which is explicitly different from colonialism.

Because very little has actually changed. The West is still seeking to keep countries firmly under its boot using the example same hollow cries of “freedom and democracy” it always has.

The people of those countries pretty clearly don’t want their resources being looted by the West, as their actions continue to show.

Once again, the West is the one responsible for that “weakness” to begin with, because “weak” nations are easier to continue to plunder.

Murdering leaders who have the potential to change things for the better—as repeatedly happened—pretty clearly demonstrates otherwise.

“Diplomatic support” propping up corrupt tyrants to make looting the country easier is not something the people of Africa want.

“Aid” being nothing more than a convenient way to subvert the sovereignty of African countries only further demonstrates the West doesn’t actually give a shit about “freedom and democracy” or whatever— it just wants to loot.

As usual.

 

[Gozaburo]

Because very little has actually changed. The West is still seeking to keep countries firmly under its boot using the example same hollow cries of “freedom and democracy” it always has.

The people of those countries pretty clearly don’t want their resources being looted by the West, as their actions continue to show.

Once again, the West is the one responsible for that “weakness” to begin with, because “weak” nations are easier to continue to plunder.

I mean once again, they can choose who they want. The reality is they'll either be ruled by one liege or another. I'd prefer it's us but admittedly I'm biased!

“Diplomatic support” propping up corrupt tyrants to make looting the country easier is not something the people of Africa want.

“Aid” being nothing more than a convenient way to subvert the sovereignty of African countries only further demonstrates the West doesn’t actually give a shit about “freedom and democracy” or whatever— it just wants to loot.

Preventing the deaths of tens of millions of people annually is ackshually a 5-dimensional chest master plan to subvert the sovereignty of African nations and keep them enslaved and beholden to Western powers, who are cynically interested in preventing mass death to... create favorable trade deals for Africans? Very serious person I see.

 

[Tigerace117]

I mean once again, they can choose who they want. The reality is they'll either be ruled by one liege or another. I'd prefer it's us but admittedly I'm biased!



Preventing the deaths of tens of millions of people annually is ackshually a 5-dimensional chest master plan to subvert the sovereignty of African nations and keep them enslaved and beholden to Western powers, who are cynically interested in preventing mass death to... create favorable trade deals for Africans? Very serious person I see.

Once again, pretending Western neocolonialism is remotely benign is totally nonsensical, which is why people in Africa continue to reject it.

The West caused millions upon millions of deaths across Africa in the first place, honored those responsible as heroes, continued actively destabilizing the continent right up until the present, and then turns around and postures about how “weak” those countries are and how they should be grateful the West deigns to even attempt to lessen the problems they caused in the first place.

Gee, I wonder why people in Africa might not be receptive to that message?

But hey, we can always count on the West to install another corrupt tyrant if the governments there get too pushy about their people being exploited.