Kathy64 #racist

Kathy64 #racist libertydwells.com

HOORAY for IMPERIALISM.

Of countries that lived must better under imperialism than without it, well, lets just say Africa and be done with it. Civilization, the rule of law, infrastructure improvements, advances in medicine have all been spread through imperialism of some kind. Once the imperialistic whites were removed from Africa, the Flower of Rhodesia became the starving poverty stricken Zimbabwe. Without an imperial force, Nigeria is in a religious civil war right now. The colonial government of Somalia left and we have - Somalia. Without an imperial army, we had the Hutu Tutsi war, starving Biafrans and the genocidal war of Rwanda. It's a wonder what's left of the sane people in Africa haven't asked the Boers to come back!

Imperialism is a necessary component of progress. I'm certainly happy that there was an Imperial Rome, an Imperial Britian and if there wasn't an Imperial Spain, we likely wouldn't be here.

54 comments

old comment by alaric91

Yeah, definitely more of an RSTDT post.

But completely ignoring that, might I point out the many, many empires Africa naturally produced, including a few so advanced that racists had to create all kinds of wild theories about White Africans just to explain them? Or the fact that a large part of Africa's current problems were caused by imperialists exploiting it for all its worth, then packing up and leaving, leaving all the problems this behavior causes intact without the inherent "stabilization" power of overwhelming military might? Or the fact that Europe was fully capable of poverty, religious civil wars, and full-blown chaos all on its own (see the Thirty Years War for one of my favorite examples of all three, it involving so many big-name European powers).

In short, get your head out of your ass and into a history book. When some random asshole on the internet can refute just about everything you say, you obviously have nothing worth saying.

old comment by dionysus

The imperialists put warring tribes in the same country, took as many resources as they could, turned people against each other, and committed terrible atrocities. Yes, they also brought Western medicine, technology, and infrastructure but they caused enormous problems as well. And they didn't bring Western technology to Africa because they were some kind-hearted heroes that just wanted to help those people. No, they wanted Africa's land and resources for their own gain. Things like bringing medicine shows that imperialists weren't Saturday morning cartoon villains but rather people. But to whitewash imperialism as if it's the greatest gift anyone has ever received is either insane or incredibly naive.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

This ought to go under RSTDT.

But anyway, I don't think Kathy realizes that imperialism was the direct cause of all the suffering in Africa. Before imperialism, there were several advanced (for the time, anyway) societies in Africa. The city of Timbuktu, located in Mali, once had a larger and more complete library than anything in Europe.

And furthermore, the Boers are still there. What, do you think they just left? If they had left, then how would they still be there for white supremacists to exaggerate claims that they are being subjected to a genocide? But then again, it's no wonder that white supremacists love the Boers (though few posting on the Internet actually live in South Africa for some reason). The Boers are the rednecks of the Cape. I have just as much disdain for them as I have for the Bible thumpers of the American South. So you know what they say about birds of a feather.

old comment by

Actually, this isn't entirely without reason. Having actually lived in a former British colony for some time (none of the African ones mentioned here, I admit) I was told by a number of locals that they wished the country had never taken Independence from the British because they simply weren't up to the job of governing themselves yet. One of the national papers later ran a poll that suggested the majority of their readers would rather return to British rule. This is not the complete picture though, as both the individuals who expressed their views to me and the readership of that particular paper were from the upper-middle classes; whether the common man-in-the-street would be of the same view is an entirely different matter. For what it's worth though, my own opinion is that countries should govern themselves, I'm just saying that it's very easy to criticise a view like this when really the issue is more complex than it seems.

old comment by farpadokly

The problems of Africa are at least partly the RESULT of imperialism, not the result of imperialism's absence. Go into a territory, steal all its resources and commercially exploit and enslave the population, draw arbitrary border lines around it, and pit the various tribes within those arbitrary borders against each other. The ol' divide and rule.
After independence, force these countries to open up their markets using international organisations like the IMF and World Bank, while jealously protecting your own markets. Leave them with no option than to get indebted to you. Compel them to grow crops for export, thus neglecting to grow food to feed their own population. Watch the ensuing poverty breed chaos and violence.
The actions of the Spanish in the Americas were absolutely disgraceful, and anyone who praises them should be ashamed of themselves. The British empire was barely any better.
As for Rome, that was slightly different.

old comment by Robespierre

I disagree with you posters. Was there any realistic international arrangement in the 19th century preferable to colonialism? More to the point, would african countries be better off if they had never been colonised?
I do not think so. The very few examples that exist (Ethiopia, Thailand, Haiti*) are not particularly favourable.
And if we do not limit ourselves to Africa and Latin America, the areas in east Asia that were colonised longer (Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, the treaty ports of China) were unmistakeably more
industrialized than the ones that did not.
So let's cut the crap and answer one question:
would the lives of indigenous people be better, now, if the countries had not been colonised?

*Yes, I am aware of the origin of Haiti and its recent dependence on the US under a brutal obscurantist dictatorship.

old comment by Sylvana

Colonization brought with it many technological advances but also imposed extreme oppression on the locals, not to mention all the problems that also come with all the modern technology. One could argue that medical advances allowed the native Africans to live longer, but such advances were never really available to those Africans. The people were treated as property and slaves in all but name. They were not educated and not looked after. They were essentially nothing more than work horses to the colonizing government.

Much of africa is a failed state because of the rampant inequality. Inequality that was always there. However the difference now is that the success of the nation is measured in the success of the total population instead of the few elite masters. Most Africans would rather starve than return to the near slavery and oppression of the colonial eras. They are a free people now, they are free to make their own way and that is one of the most important things in the world.

I haven't been this angry in a long time. Africa is no bed of roses, and petty dictators are a dime a dozen. However the racism and oppression of the west when colonizing Africa has left deep scars that will take centuries to heal and fix.

@Robespierre

Did Colonization make Africa better? No. Try living here and you will see.

old comment by Vox

"well, lets just say Africa and be done with it"

You mean Africa was better off back in the days when 95% of the continent's population lived in abject poverty? Even with Africa's problems today nowhere near 95% of the population is poor like it was under colonialism, when only the small white enclave lived in any semblance of comfort.

"Civilization, the rule of law"

Yes, because slaughtering in excess of 30 million people, raping native women and ranching off 95% of the population into poverty-stricken corrals and reservations with barely arable or non-arable land is "civilized". As "civilized" as King Leopold's policy of chopping off hands of non-obedient Africans. Read up on the "Herero and Namaqua Genocide". Or Belgium's genocide in central Africa. Or the destruction of the Shona people.

Yeah, Africans not having any constitutional rights is "rule of law" alright.

"infrastructure improvements, advances in medicine"

old comment by Vox

"infrastructure improvements, advances in medicine"

Africa has more infrastructure now than it had any point under the Europeans:

www.infrastructureafrica.org/system/files/WB147_AIATT_CH01.pdf

Not to mention there are plenty of fairly well-off and up and coming African countries (Libya, South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Gabon, Ghana, Mauritius, Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea, Botswana).

http://www.economist.com/node/21533441

In 2010 S. Africa was listed as a "Newly Industrialized Country".

Won't even get into the native infrastructure of advanced empires like the Songhai/Mali Empire being destroyed by Europeans (or read the punitive European destruction of the Benin City). Or the vast medical knowledge and advancements by civilizations like the Songhai Empire and the esoteric medical knowledge of people like Dahomey shamans. All destroyed by colonialism.

"the Flower of Rhodesia became the starving poverty stricken Zimbabwe"

That's because Ian Smith and Robert Mugabe did not invest in nationwide industrialized farming and Mugabe got into trouble with foreign borrowing and punitive IMF/World bank measures that caused hyperinflation. Zimbabwe was one of the most well-off sub-Saharan countries until the early 90s.

I digress.

old comment by Vman

Regarding the OP (and continuing on Vox's post):

Also, if I recall correctly, various indicators of quality of life in Zimbabwe improved significantly between 1980 (Rhodesia->Zimbabwe; start of majority rule) and 1990 (a crisis hit the country in the early '90s IIRC).

That's because Mugabe actually did do one thing right - his government created opportunities for a wide number of black people to get an education and access to basic health services... as opposed to Smith's, who - being white supremacists - really didn't give much of a damn about the 'darkies' as long as they worked the fields and kept their heads down.

Rhodesia was an apartheid state, with all that that implies. Sure, the laws were different in some ways from South Africa's, but the differences weren't all that large... and the core natures of the two regimes were one and the same.

Kathy64 #racist libertydwells.com

54 comments

Confused?