Again, smilies won't make your posts right
I don't care, because this whole idea is just so funny to me 
Yeah, I bet!
Yeah, perhaps.
-
📚 Admin Project Update: Added a new feature to PictureBooks.io called Story Worlds. It lets your child become the hero of beloved classic tales! Choose from worlds like Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Arabian Nights, or Robin Hood. Give it a try and let me know what you think!
War breaks out (again) in the DR Congo
- Thread starter Che Guava
- Start date
I don't care, because this whole idea is just so funny to me 
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Ah the good old days, when King Leopold was killing more people in the congo then died in the holocaust.
And while we're recolonizing things, maybe we should start in Europe.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Ah the good old days, when King Leopold was killing more people in the congo then died in the holocaust.
Next time, spare me the trouble and read the next posts.
Or America.
Verbose
Deity
The kicker, for Africans and everyone else, is that the actual conditions before European interference are pretty murky.
So, those who wish are free to imagine highly improbable utopias of bliss and goodwill towards all men, and those who wish can indulge in equally improbable visions of dysfunctional African gruel-fests since time immemorial, since how things really worked is left mostly up to conjecture. This is otherwise known as the "postcolonial situation".
The bits of consistent history we seem to be able to access to say that European interference consistently altered the ballgame for Africans:
Slave trading, one of these things people will say "OMFG the Africans did it to themselves" over, which skirts the fact that the circuit and scope of the acitivities were radically altered by integrating Africa in a European global system of trade. It's simple supply and demand, more demand from the new European designed world economy, greater potential profits, adds up to an increase in scale definately capable of severly disrupting west African societies for a very long time. Add the introduction of European fire-arms to build the African varieties of "Gunpowder Empires" (buy guns, attack your neighbours, take slaves, buy more guns, rinse and repeat) also fuelled the process.
The slave trade brought down large obviously functional African polities like the kingdom of Angola, despite the Angolans adopting Christianity in an attempt to avert this disaster made in Europe.
A more recent examples of a functional African polity was located precisely in the contested border area between southern Sudan and the two Congos. Who ran the show there in the 19th c., prior to the advent of the Europans? Why the princes of the house of Avongara, uniting a considerable number of millions of Africans in the Azande Federation, size three times France.
They were hardly peaceful towards their neighbours, but they are one of the anthropologists' favourite polities, specifically because they were masters of the integration of conquered peoples. They were wonderful at keeping internal peace, and they were one of very few African polities capable of completely interdicting slave hunting in their area creating a "Pax Zandica".
Their fate? Broken up between the UK (Sudan), France (French Congo) and Belgium (Belgian Congo) in the first decade of the 20th c., with conscious relocation of the entire population to break patterns of dependancy on local princely power in favour of dependancy on colonial officials.
In order to avoid southern Sudan and north east Congo turning out like they now have, the Europeans could have left the Azande to run the show. No way of knowing how that would have turned out, put the fingerprints of European colonialism would at least have been less visible.
Otoh, Winner is perfectly right in that the Belgium Congo colony was at least no worse than other European colonies in Africa, and better than some. On the normal charges of paternalism and infrastructure designed to haul the loot out of Africa asap rather than actually benefit the natives, it was of course equally guilty along with the rest of the bunch.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
The Congo genocide resulted in the deaths of 20 million Congolese by King Leoplod and the Belgians. The man was a genocidal maniac on par with Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and every other mass murdering dictator in 20th century history. European colonization is bloodstained everywhere be it in Africa, South America or Asia entire cultures were annihilated, millions massacred in their conquests and interference. There was nothing even vaugely noble about European colonization it was purely for their own self intreast and the Africans benefited very little.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Winner: Just thought I'd respond to your argument as a whole, rather than pick and choose quotes to respond to.
I don't think that anyone can really deny that the Belgian Congo (that being the colonial state that existed between 1908 and 1960) dramatically increased the standard of living of most congolese by investing heavily in health, education, transport infrastructure, etc, just as I don't think anyone can deny that the Congo Free State was equally as terrible for congolese.
Having said that, the Belgians made one fatal error that I think still haunts the region to this day: they never made any real effort to give political power to the congolese, nor groom anyone for leadership position. Blacks were given better services, bu thte paternalistic attitude of the colonial gov't ensured that they would not participate in the political or adiministrative process, and even set up condescending measures like cerfews and restricted zones of movement to keep things quiet. BY 1955, the Belgian gov't had come up with one plan to gradually groom leaders (over 30 years!), while still outlawing domestical political parties or even making appointments of black congolese to any kind of post of importance. By the time that independence came about in 1960 due to local dissatisfaction with the colonial government, there was no one left with real political experience to lead the vast territory. Predictably, the country descended into factionalism, corruption, and eventually a full out authoritarian kleptocracy.
Are the colonized to blame for that state of affairs? In one way, yes, they couldn't effectively govern themselves or take care of the administrative side of keeping their infrastructure together. On the other hand, I think the Belgians are almost as much to blame for thier short sighted policies around emancipation and thier refusal to see the native congolese as anything but children...
I don't think that anyone can really deny that the Belgian Congo (that being the colonial state that existed between 1908 and 1960) dramatically increased the standard of living of most congolese by investing heavily in health, education, transport infrastructure, etc, just as I don't think anyone can deny that the Congo Free State was equally as terrible for congolese.
Having said that, the Belgians made one fatal error that I think still haunts the region to this day: they never made any real effort to give political power to the congolese, nor groom anyone for leadership position. Blacks were given better services, bu thte paternalistic attitude of the colonial gov't ensured that they would not participate in the political or adiministrative process, and even set up condescending measures like cerfews and restricted zones of movement to keep things quiet. BY 1955, the Belgian gov't had come up with one plan to gradually groom leaders (over 30 years!), while still outlawing domestical political parties or even making appointments of black congolese to any kind of post of importance. By the time that independence came about in 1960 due to local dissatisfaction with the colonial government, there was no one left with real political experience to lead the vast territory. Predictably, the country descended into factionalism, corruption, and eventually a full out authoritarian kleptocracy.
Are the colonized to blame for that state of affairs? In one way, yes, they couldn't effectively govern themselves or take care of the administrative side of keeping their infrastructure together. On the other hand, I think the Belgians are almost as much to blame for thier short sighted policies around emancipation and thier refusal to see the native congolese as anything but children...
Too rich for my blood. If it were $5, however....
Just like Iraq, it'd probably be enough to overthrow the government but not enough to impose security.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Slave trade indeed had a negative influence, but it is necessary to say that large scale slave trade didn't appear with Europeans - Arabian slave trade claimed at least the same number of lives as the European one and existed for centuries.
I see slave trade as an unfortunate but rather natural outcome of contact between an advanced and primitive peoples. Africans were horribly backwards when they first met the Portugese who were trying to find a new sea route to India. It was just a matter of time before someone exploits this weakness.
Europeans estabilished their colonies in a way that allowed them to control them easily. Nobody could knew what would happen in the future back in the 19th century.
Still, I think that facts speak for themselves. It is pointless to argue whether the current situation could have been averted, the fact is Congo is now much worse place to live in than it used to be under the European rule.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Go back to school, little boy, you're speaking nonsense.
Moderator Action: Stop the flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
You're ridiculous, and funny sometimes, too.
On the one hand, you admire people like Hitler, you think that stronger and bigger nations have right to conquer the weaker countries, but when someone other than your country (which is it now?) does that, you gripe about that.
Europeans were lucky. They managed to get ahead of the old cultures like China or India, which stagnated and were unable to advance to the modern age, and primitive cultures in Africa and America. Just like Romans expanded on the expense of the weaker peoples and old, decadent civilizations, European colonial countries expanded in the same fashion, just globally. If it hadn't been them, somebody else would have done it, few centuries later.
The fact remains that modernity, which for instance allows you to use the Internet right now, has been brought to you by Europeans.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Well, I guess the original Belgian plan (independence in 90's) looks realistic now, when we know what really happened. Perhaps if it had been followed, Congo would have been spared of all that misery.
Masquerouge
Deity
Good for Congo! It will improve its economy, and will drive technological improvements!
(bonus points for guessing the thread I'm not so subtly hinting at)
(bonus points for guessing the thread I'm not so subtly hinting at)
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
I don't really think a 30 year plan to independence would be any more realistic then than it is now (imagine America making a 30 year commitment to rule Iraq whjile they got things 'sorted out'), especially given the level of dissatisfaction with colonial rule within the Congo during the 1950s. On the other hand, full independence obviously didn't worl out too well either. I think by the time 1960 came around, the mistakes were already made, and there wasn't much chance for a state like that anyhow...
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Winner
Diverse in Unity
It can't be compared to Iraq. Iraqis resist because they're not used to American rule. Congolese were ruled by Belgium for their whole lives, they were used to it. The trouble was that the process of preparing them for independence magnified the danger that the newly created native elites would try to speed up the process out of their own impatience. Which is exactly what happened.
If Belgians had refused, the nationalists would have probably started a long-lasting guerilla campaign, and Belgium wasn't prepared to face it.
And... you aren't?
Look above.
Well if he's funny that would make you downright hilarious and insane.
Quoted for extreme irony. If you don't understand just think of the nations of focus as the EU and USA instead of India and you will find your answer.
Primitive in what standards?
You have just found an answer to why people like me and Silver are angry at bigots such as yourself. You should expect to go no where with that type thinking.
Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,434
That's true. But you can't really "blame europeans" for that. Both the slave trade and guns were simultaneously being introduced into Africa from across the Sahara and, in a larger scale, from the trade cities in the oriental coast.
It was a fact waiting to happen, and inevitable regardless of who carried these things into Africa.
The several kingdoms often referred to as "kingdom of Angola" were themselves a result of european interference. The original important organized kingdom in the region, at the time of the original european contact, was the Kingdom of Congo, and it was by no means simply conquered by europeans. It has quite an interesting history of its own. The initial intention of the portuguese crown regarding this kingdom was forming an alliance while it (as it did later also with Ethiopia) at the same time, obviously, trying to influence it culturally. Unfortunately three factors derailed that plan:
1) the place was simply too backwards (PC people would say different, but I'd rather call things what they are) to prosper - it lacked enough stability and a lot of things that Europe already had by the 16th century, and introducing them would cause a lot of turmoil in the kingdom, eventually shattering it as a political entity.
2) by the 17th century it became apparent that sugar plantations would require slave labor, and the slave trade (which was a local custom in Kongo predating european settlement) would increase the frequency of wars and destroy what little chance was left of stability there.
3) the continuous mediterranean wars between christians and muslims left an heritage of religious intolerance in the Iberian Peninsula, while also providing a constant reminder of the "institution" of slavery (christian populations often being raided by muslim slaver fleets). This gave some people ideas about enslaving africans (as they were not christians, the justification went) as early as the 1420s, despite slavery having fallen into disuse in christian Europe for centuries (yes, I'm blaming the muslims for slavery!). I can't locate the source now, but recall having read that the first case of european explorers taking africans captive and trying to sell them as slaves occurred with a portuguese explorer in the late 1420s - it had an unhappy ending for him, as the people of Lagos, where he tried to hold the auction, had had their share of slavers raiding them and proceeded to kick him out of town and release his "merchandise". The idea, however, would remain and soon other merchants and explorers would get royal protection for that trade, provided a series of "righteous" conditions were met. And unfortunately the same reasoning that led to the acceptance of the enslavement of certain people (different religion, "rightfully" bought, other people already had slavery, etc.) would later be followed from african slaves to africans an an inferior race to be ruled (slaves were usually african, therefore africans were naturally inferior).
It's sad the evil that unchecked greed can cause.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
This is incredibly ignorant. Leopold and the Belgian colonizers should have been tried for crimes against humanity. Look it up sometime, instead of clinging to the Eurocentricism.
Africans were generally terribly maltreated in the regime, being nothing more than forced labor for European colonizers. It was just about the same as slavery, except in a modern form to make it more acceptable to backers. Leopold himself was so corrupt that the Belgian parliament actually took the fief of the Congo from him, in order to run it better: things became, I suppose, tolerable after that. Tolerable meaning the usual hellhole that African colonies became.
Yes, the Europeans brought infrastructure. They railroaded right from the natural resources to the ports. They mined the natural resources, railed them to ports, and shipped them home. That's the entire extent of it. Every other thing they built in that time period was for the benefit of their own people in the nation, or nearly every other thing: actual gain to the African citizenry was negligible.
In general Africa was treated like an open-pit mine. Blaming the Africans for that is rather foolish.
amadeus
ⓞ ዝ ʏ ɛ ᗩ ի
Congo Free State =/= Belgian Congo.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Ah, the anti-colonial sentiment of America strikes again.
I am well aware of what was happening in the so-called Congo Free State (I wonder why Commies don't use it as an example of corporate brutality). I am talking about post-1908 Congo, when Belgium annexed it and begun to undo the wrongdoings.
And conditions then weren't just tolerable, they were well above average. But the mistake you and others are doing is this - you compare the colonial regimes with what exactly? Pre-colonial Africa was in many aspects much worse. Instead of Europeans, the local chiefs and dubious kings treated the population much worse, except few beacons of higher culture, which never developed into a full-fledged civilization.
Do you know Monty Python? I think this sums it up pretty well:
What have the Romans ever done for us?!
That's laughable. Europeans have brought medicine, they've built cities, infrastructure, schools, they stopped millenium old wars between tribes, they introduced law and order etc. etc. etc. See the video above.
What's foolish? Imagine that Europeans or nobody else would ever come to Africa and it remained in its pristine state of constrant tribal warfare, 90% of children would die before the age of 7, there would be no healthcare, no education, no states, no nothing.
I am sure the pseudo-humanists who now denounce colonialism would be yelling "do something about that, send troops, help them!".
The fact is that European colonialism, no matter which methods it used, actually improved the living standard of an average African. Europeans provided them with a lift from the Stone Age.
If it wasn't for the WW2, colonialism would continue perhaps to this very day and it would be for the good of Africans themselves.
I am well aware of what was happening in the so-called Congo Free State (I wonder why Commies don't use it as an example of corporate brutality). I am talking about post-1908 Congo, when Belgium annexed it and begun to undo the wrongdoings.
And conditions then weren't just tolerable, they were well above average. But the mistake you and others are doing is this - you compare the colonial regimes with what exactly? Pre-colonial Africa was in many aspects much worse. Instead of Europeans, the local chiefs and dubious kings treated the population much worse, except few beacons of higher culture, which never developed into a full-fledged civilization.
Do you know Monty Python? I think this sums it up pretty well:
What have the Romans ever done for us?!
That's laughable. Europeans have brought medicine, they've built cities, infrastructure, schools, they stopped millenium old wars between tribes, they introduced law and order etc. etc. etc. See the video above.
What's foolish? Imagine that Europeans or nobody else would ever come to Africa and it remained in its pristine state of constrant tribal warfare, 90% of children would die before the age of 7, there would be no healthcare, no education, no states, no nothing.
I am sure the pseudo-humanists who now denounce colonialism would be yelling "do something about that, send troops, help them!".
The fact is that European colonialism, no matter which methods it used, actually improved the living standard of an average African. Europeans provided them with a lift from the Stone Age.
If it wasn't for the WW2, colonialism would continue perhaps to this very day and it would be for the good of Africans themselves.
Wow, cool statistic.
Similar threads
- Poll
