Is Africa drifting into a state of more and more military takeovers?

[Ginza]

Oh, I do ignore their comments, for I understand that it is painful for many people to accept brutal reality, which clashes with their idealistic views.

Being unable to accept that not everything can be expressed in simple minded terms of white = bad, black = good really angers some people.

 

[Tigerace117]

So you think living longer, having access to schools, universities, hospitals etc is a disaster?

.......

I certainly think being slaughtered for daring to ask for the rights you deserve, getting tossed in torture camps because the foreigners brutally oppressing your country can’t figure out how to win a battle, and losing all rights in your own country is a disaster.

It’s quite telling that you can’t figure that out.

 

[Ginza]

and losing all rights in your own country

Er, what rights did Africans have prior to colonisation?

None.

They were the subjects of the meanest sob in their area.

 

[Tigerace117]

Er, what rights did Africans have prior to colonisation?

None.

They were the subjects of the meanest sob in their area.

Err, they didn’t get their hands chopped off for failing to meet a physically impossible quota set by a greedy European monarch and his cannibal henchmen.

To name just one example.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Although I disagree with much of your opinion, it is true -- according to what I have read -- that the Belgians did seem to favor one group over another in Rwanda.

If you want to talk about Belgian control in Africa, you may want to consider the impact that King Leopold had...namely in the deaths of 10 million Africans....who he, by decree, reduced to serfdom (literally) and confiscated all manner of goods from the populace (like ivory, rubber, etc.) for his personal wealth.

While the Belgians were the worst offenders in Africa, most of the other European nations with colonies did not really treat their native populations that much better.

The possible exception to this were the Germans. They encountered less problems with the natives as they treated the various tribes in a different fashion than the other Europeans did. They still thought they were racially superior, but did not always view Africans as idiots and developed more working relationships than treating them as simple-minded subjects to their empire like most others did. BTW, not saying the Germans were angels, they had their problems on their views of Africans, its just that they tended to be more pragmatic than the others.

You may want to read up on this subject a little bit more before posting....

 

[Jason Warfield]

Er, what rights did Africans have prior to colonisation?

None.

They were the subjects of the meanest sob in their area.

They had the rights that their ruling governments had for them...like in Europe, where many where still under monarchies and did not have as many rights as, say, we did in at that time in America.

So, if you want to compare their rights to America, then they didn't have has many rights as we did, true. But the same could be same of many European nations who had colonies in Africa.

Prior to colonization, Africans fell into one of three groupings of government, each with their own set of rights. For the stateless (like indigenous tribes) they operated under communalism. So, there wasn't really a big baddie to control everyone, just the entire tribe looking out for itself. Then there were larger areas where there were tribes united under consensus rule: a sort of rudimentary democracy that had leaders, but the will of people was the governing body. And then lastly, and more in tune of many European nations, there were actual kingdoms with monarchal rule.

I realize that many people's idea of Africa comes from the old Johnny Weismuller "Tarzan" movies...but Africa was more complex than that.

 

[Ginza]

I realize that many people's idea of Africa comes from the old Johnny Weismuller "Tarzan" movies...but Africa was more complex than that.

I haven't watched any of the movies you speak of but have lived in both Central and Southern Africa for many years.

The area was dominated by strong chiefs, perhaps the best known are men like Tshaka and Mzilikazi who both ruled by fear.

The words of Cetshwayo come to mind when he was criticised for murdering his own people. He complained that his people would not listen to him unless he killed them from time to time.

Tshaka is famous for impaling his subjects through the rectum on stakes.

The diaries of the early European traders, like Isaacs and Fynn both tell of how Tshaka would murder his subjects at random in order to impress guests to his kraal.

Talk of Africans having rights is an inaccurate generalisation.

Rule by fear was common in the past and was the way almost all rulers hung onto power whether they be African, European or Asian.

 

[Ginza]

The possible exception to this were the Germans.

Er, someone obviously hasn't read the news lately :

"On May 28, Germany formally apologized for the genocide of the Herero and Nama people of Namibia"

German Apology For Colonial Genocide Sees A Divided Response In Namibia

On May 28, Germany formally apologized for the genocide of the Herero and Nama people of Namibia during the nation’s colonial period. As part of this apology, the German government offered to fund …

theowp.org

You may want to read up on this subject a little bit more before posting.

 

[Ginza]

Err, they didn’t get their hands chopped off for failing to meet a physically impossible quota set by a greedy European monarch and his cannibal henchmen.

To name just one example.

And you call that a right?

Why not admit that they had none at all...instead of looking for some pathetic way to criticise white people?

It was colonials, especially the British, who actually stopped the slave trade that Africans had been carrying on for many centuries before Europeans set foot in Africa.

 

[Tigerace117]

And you call that a right?

Why not admit that they had none at all...instead of looking for some pathetic way to criticise white people?

It was colonials, especially the British, who actually stopped the slave trade that Africans had been carrying on for many centuries before Europeans set foot in Africa.

Uh....yes, not being brutally enslaved by foreigners is probably the most basic right of them all. You rolling around on the floor weeping pools of tears because the historical facts show what a disgrace colonialism was....doesn’t change them.

Colonists screamed in outrage when the decision to ban slavery was made. Abolitionists ignored them and went through with it anyway. Those with interests in the colonies, particularly the Caribbean in the case of Britain, were the most fanatical defenders of slavery.

 

[joluoto]

Uh....yes, not being brutally enslaved by foreigners is probably the most basic right of them all. You rolling around on the floor weeping pools of tears because the historical facts show what a disgrace colonialism was....doesn’t change them.

Colonists screamed in outrage when the decision to ban slavery was made. Abolitionists ignored them and went through with it anyway. Those with interests in the colonies, particularly the Caribbean in the case of Britain, were the most fanatical defenders of slavery.

Having actually looked into slavery in Africa, the "abolition" usually was just words, the League of Nations were discussing how to end slavery in Africa in the 1920s and 30s because it was still around, and the colonial regimes chose to ignore it, because they were in league with the local elites.

 

[TheParser]

Being unable to accept that not everything can be expressed in simple minded terms of white = bad, black = good really angers some people.

I think that it is a fact that millions (millions!) of African people would be living TODAY if the Europeans were still in charge.

Since independence, millions of people (in the Congo. Nigeria, Zimbabwe, etc.) have been killed in civil strife.

Yes, Rwanda was the most horrifying example, but perfectly unnecessary deaths have occurred in almost ALL African countries.

 

[TheParser]

In Africa, it was mostly the same with Europeans bringing in large numbers of Indians to do much of the really hard work as Africans did not have much of a work ethic.

Whoa!

That sentence is going to upset a lot of people.

I have read that the Chinese in Africa are currently having some "disagreements" with Africans regarding the "work ethic," too.

 

[Ginza]

Whoa!

That sentence is going to upset a lot of people.

I have read that the Chinese in Africa are currently having some "disagreements" with Africans regarding the "work ethic," too.

It can upset them, I really don't care. Most haven't lived in Africa or owned a business there.

I employed hundreds of black, Indian and so called "coloured" people in Africa (coloured in Southern Africa are either mixed race black/white or people of Malay extraction brought to the area by the Dutch hundreds of years ago.

The black Africans had easily the worst work ethic. But we were forced to employ them due to the requirements of the Employment Equity Act which discriminated against whites, Indians and coloureds.

The black Africans are mostly great people on a personal level but were not generally great employees.

 

[Tigerace117]

I think that it is a fact that millions (millions!) of African people would be living TODAY if the Europeans were still in charge.

Since independence, millions of people (in the Congo. Nigeria, Zimbabwe, etc.) have been killed in civil strife.

Yes, Rwanda was the most horrifying example, but perfectly unnecessary deaths have occurred in almost ALL African countries.

.



What a pathetic joke of an argument.

The European colonial empires were as brutal as they were incompetent. Arguing that “millions would be alive” if they’d been able to continue brutally exploiting the locals for longer is absurdly laughable.

 

[Ginza]

Having actually looked into slavery in Africa, the "abolition" usually was just words

Nonsense.

The Dutch settlers left the control of the British at the Cape mainly because the British not only stopped them having slaves but also punished the Dutch (Afrikaners) if they treated their servants badly.

British ships prevented Americans taking hundreds of thousands of slaves to America.

"Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans."

A Brief History of Slavery | Chasing Freedom Exhibition: the Royal Navy and the Suppression of the Transatlantic Slave Trade | Current Special Exhibitions | Your Visit | Royal Naval Museum at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard

Chasing Freedom exhibition at the Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth information on the suppression of the slave trade by the Royal Navy

web.archive.org

 

[Tigerace117]

The Congo, to name just ONE example, has NEVER recovered from the brutality of colonial rule, which slaughtered millions of people and left the country in complete shambles.

Just like nations across Africa, it was set up to fail from the start.

 

[Ginza]

What a pathetic joke of an argument.

The European colonial empires were as brutal as they were incompetent. Arguing that “millions would be alive” if they’d been able to continue brutally exploiting the locals for longer is absurdly laughable.

He's absolutely correct.

If the British and other Europeans hadn't stopped the slave trade by which Africans had been exploiting other Africans for many centuries, it would have continued for centuries.

Who else would have stopped Africans enslaving each other?

 

[Tigerace117]

He's absolutely correct.

If the British and other Europeans hadn't stopped the slave trade by which Africans had been exploiting other Africans for many centuries, it would have continued for centuries.

Who else would have stopped Africans enslaving each other?

He couldn’t be more wrong, actually

Colonists were absolutely FURIOUS that slavery was banned, but abolitionists back at home laughed in their faces and overcame their whining. Over and over again, the figures with the closest ties to the colonies, particularly in the Caribbean, were the loudest opposing the ban on slavery.

If the locals hadn’t booted out their oppressors— and if America hadn’t helped smack the colonist thugs into submission at Suez— the British, Belgians and other colonists would have continued to brutally abuse them for centuries.

After all, they were having a grand old time looting everything that wasn’t nailed to the ground.

 

[Ginza]

He couldn’t be more wrong, actually

So why no answer to my question :

"Who else would have stopped Africans enslaving each other?"

Too hard for you?

 

[Tigerace117]

So why no answer to my question :

"Who else would have stopped Africans enslaving each other?"

Too hard for you?

So why so desperate to ignore the fact that colonists were enraged by slavery being banned?

Too traumatic for your fantasy worldview to handle?

We all know who stoped your heroes from continuing to brutally abuse the locals

 

[Ginza]

So why so desperate to ignore the fact that colonists were enraged by slavery being banned?

So why so desperate to ignore the fact that colonists stopped Africans enslaving each other?

 

[Tigerace117]

[

So why so desperate to ignore the fact that colonists stopped Africans enslaving each other?

So why so desperate to ignore the fact that the colonists were FORCED to end slavery against their will?

 

[joluoto]

If you want to talk about Belgian control in Africa, you may want to consider the impact that King Leopold had...namely in the deaths of 10 million Africans....who he, by decree, reduced to serfdom (literally) and confiscated all manner of goods from the populace (like ivory, rubber, etc.) for his personal wealth.

While the Belgians were the worst offenders in Africa, most of the other European nations with colonies did not really treat their native populations that much better.

The possible exception to this were the Germans. They encountered less problems with the natives as they treated the various tribes in a different fashion than the other Europeans did. They still thought they were racially superior, but did not always view Africans as idiots and developed more working relationships than treating them as simple-minded subjects to their empire like most others did. BTW, not saying the Germans were angels, they had their problems on their views of Africans, its just that they tended to be more pragmatic than the others.

You may want to read up on this subject a little bit more before posting....

The Germans comitted the Herero and Namaqua genocide in Namibia, so I wouldn't put them on a pedestal.

 

[Ginza]

So why so desperate to ignore the fact that the colonists were FORCED to end slavery against their will?

You make no sense at all.

It was the colonial nations that ended slavery....much against the will of African slave traders.