- Thread Starter
- #101
The British are superior to the French in every regard.
On that we agree --- except for wine.. But other than that --- yeah you are right.
The British are superior to the French in every regard.
Is there a way to ignore a whole thread? Asking for a friend.
I am too lazy to look it up, but I don't think all African nations were former colonies of European countries. If that is true, then colonialism theory of why these countries struggle can be tested, ie, are the countries that were never subject to colonial rule any better off?
ethiopiadid get attacked repeatedly by the Italians though
The local government was not prepared to take on the responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure built up by the French. While I am by no means pro-colonialism, I will fault the corruption of many post independence countries for allowing their country to revert to pre-colonial status.Isn’t that the failure of the French and the imperial administration?
Ethiopia had it's own problems with the continued civil war between native Ethiopians and Eritrians. The problem with the way Africa exists today is that it's built on borders created by colonialism instead of along tribal lines. Had Africa been allowed to evolve politically on its own, I suspect it would have been much better off.
Does "evolve politically" mean war among tribes? Because that is how most borders have been determined all around the world.Ethiopia had it's own problems with the continued civil war between native Ethiopians and Eritrians. The problem with the way Africa exists today is that it's built on borders created by colonialism instead of along tribal lines. Had Africa been allowed to evolve politically on its own, I suspect it would have been much better off.
Unfortunately war is usually how these things are decided. With colonialism, tribal warfare took a turn to genocide in places like Rwanda. I would wonder if borders had been drawn according to Hutu and Tsutsi tribal borders, would there have been genocide in the first place.Does "evolve politically" mean war among tribes? Because that is how most borders have been determined all around the world.
While I am not knowledgeable of this particular situation, unfortunately domination is not unique to any one continent. Whenever one group gets an advantage, they will use that advantage to expand.Unfortunately war is usually how these things are decided. With colonialism, tribal warfare took a turn to genocide in places like Rwanda. I would wonder if borders had been drawn according to Hutu and Tsutsi tribal borders, would there have been genocide in the first place.
Colonialism was wrong. It no doubt changed the tragectory of those civilizations; for better or worse.
So, what you're saying is, the Colonialists violated the prime directive.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
Pretty much...but so did just about every Star Trek episode ever.
While I am not knowledgeable of this particular situation, unfortunately domination is not unique to any one continent. Whenever one group gets an advantage, they will use that advantage to expand.
Every continent had tribes who practiced genocide and slavery.
Colonialism was wrong. It no doubt changed the tragectory of those civilizations; for better or worse.
The real Walter Williams says something like, "Slavery was bad for my ancestors, but I benefitted from it because I got to be born in the US and not Africa." We can all agree that slavery was wrong while acknowledging that some have benefitted. Same with colonialism.Some of the people who lived under colonialism would disagree - like I said many of my Indian friends and colleagues thank God they had the English language and a British education. So like I said before - not so black and white.
The real Walter Williams says something like, "Slavery was bad for my ancestors, but I benefitted from it because I got to be born in the US and not Africa." We can all agree that slavery was wrong while acknowledging that some have benefitted. Same with colonialism.
Concur.