Meanwhile, in Congo

[Elind]

No, the fundamental question is why YOU are so deeply prejudiced and ignorant. You have contributed nothing beyond letting us know of your nasty little stupid prejudices; you know nothing of the place and you know nothing of the history. So, again, shut up and buzz off.

Which prejudice was that again? I thought I asked you to address the original issue.

I haven't actually attempted to do so, yet. Want more rope?

 

[Gurdur]

Which prejudice was that again? I thought I asked you to address the original issue.

Wrong. You "asked" me to address your ignorant, bigoted comments. They weren't worthy of it, and I addressed your nasty little, ignorant, cowardly bigotry instead. Your posts in their total are quite illuminating as to your POV, even though you very obviously just don't have the courage to come right out and state your agenda.

I haven't actually attempted to do so, yet.

Oh, we're aware of that. You simply threw in some vague racist implications, and you generally ponced around trolling, as usual.

Want more rope?

*shrug*
How's your cowardice, Elind? Your views on Arabs are well-known, now it's blacks you're moving onto. Got anything to say, Elind? Got any courage whatsoever?

Naaaaw. Let's face it, Elind, no matter exactly what brand your little nastiness is, you are just a Keyboard Kampaigner who doesn't matter one bit. Now shut up and buzz off, yet again, seeing you don't have the guts to say anything beyond your usual twattish slurs.

 

[Puppycow]

Wrong. You "asked" me to address your ignorant, bigoted comments. They weren't worthy of it, and I addressed your nasty little, ignorant, cowardly bigotry instead. Your posts in their total are quite illuminating as to your POV, even though you very obviously just don't have the courage to come right out and state your agenda.

Oh, we're aware of that. You simply threw in some vague racist implications, and you generally ponced around trolling, as usual.

*shrug*
How's your cowardice, Elind? Your views on Arabs are well-known, now it's blacks you're moving onto. Got anything to say, Elind? Got any courage whatsoever?

Naaaaw. Let's face it, Elind, no matter exactly what brand your little nastiness is, you are just a Keyboard Kampaigner who doesn't matter one bit. Now shut up and buzz off, yet again, seeing you don't have the guts to say anything beyond your usual twattish slurs.

Can we discuss this without all the insults? I don't think it increases anyone's understanding.

 

[Elind]

Can we discuss this without all the insults? I don't think it increases anyone's understanding.

Come on, please. I have plenty of rope left, and I haven't even put any bait on yet.

 

[Flo]

I should be given a medal for trying to explain so little so often.

The fundamental question IS; why they are still violent, ignorant, poor and so on, long after colonial days?

Because during colonial days, they were taught through permanent example by the colonial powers that violence is the way to rule, they were deliberately kept ignorant, poor, and so on, then after colonial days. Besides, 40 years is not a long period, especially when said period has been spent under the rule of a corrupt despot who could get away with almost anything as long as he would follow the party line of his masters in the developped world.

 

[geni]

Skipping that LotF is fiction, your point is correct. Which may or may not be a point involving Colonialism.
As an added note, would not have mattered
much if Africa had been less involved in tribal warfare, technology would have done it anyway even with the idiots who allowed the massacre at Isandlwana. Nobody, it seems, could turn sure victory into raging defeat like the British. Of course, on the same day some later there was Rorke's Drift(see Zulu) which went quite as it (and Isandlwana) should have gone.

Zulus had shear weight of numbers on their side and at Isandlwana there was little time to prepare fortifications. The casulties inflicted at Isandlwana were a major setback for the zulu armies that they never recovered from.

 

[fuelair]

Zulus had shear weight of numbers on their side and at Isandlwana there was little time to prepare fortifications. The casulties inflicted at Isandlwana were a major setback for the zulu armies that they never recovered from.

My understanding was that , in addition, there was difficulty getting sufficient ammuniton to the lines due to (IIRC) too much concern over cooking. Not totally related - a good rule of warfare is don't do it unless something causes the numbers of the other side's fighters to make no difference to what is going to happen.
(i.e. mass a million religious zealots against us, hand 'em a nuke or a feces load of of cluster bombs.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

My understanding was that , in addition, there was difficulty getting sufficient ammuniton to the lines due to (IIRC) too much concern over cooking. Not totally related - a good rule of warfare is don't do it unless something causes the numbers of the other side's fighters to make no difference to what is going to happen.
(i.e. mass a million religious zealots against us, hand 'em a nuke or a feces load of of cluster bombs.)

At the time, I think the military axiom went thusly:

Whatever happens, we have got:
The Maxim gun, and they have not

DR

 

[Fnord]

The fundamental question IS; why they are still violent, ignorant, poor and so on, long after colonial days?

It's either "Nature" or "Nurture." Elaborating on either premise will get you a reputation as a racist.

 

[TX50]

At the time, I think the military axiom went thusly:

Whatever happens, we have got:
The Maxim gun, and they have not

DR

No Maxim guns in 1879. Mk I and Mk II Martini Henry rifles and some 7pdr
muzzle loaders. The point is well made though; "western" firepower was
almost always enough to deal with the natives. It appears that it was only
once it got down to a close-in fight with cold steel that the natives had
any sort of advantage.

 

[Gurdur]

No Maxim guns in 1879. Mk I and Mk II Martini Henry rifles and some 7pdr muzzle loaders.

Note:
No Maxim guns, but certainly Gatling guns.

The Naval Brigades serving during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 used Gatling guns in several battles.

 

[Flo]

It's either "Nature" or "Nurture." Elaborating on either premise will get you a reputation as a racist.

Depends on how you elaborate.

 

[armageddonman]

A disturbing story about an epidemic of rape and violence in Congo.

Sometimes I find it hard to understand why life is so different in some third-world countries. What is wrong with these people? Colonialism was a long time ago. At some point I don't think you can point to that as an excuse anymore. The current UN presence doesn't seem to be enough to solve the problem. Elections don't seem to have helped much. What to do?

Tribalism. Same reason why the Middle East is so screwed up. Nations can only be stable if there's a certain degree of nationalism present in the society.

 

[Fnord]

Depends on how you elaborate.

I don't even want to try.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Note:
No Maxim guns, but certainly Gatling guns.

Thanks to you both for the correction. Puttin' the E into JREF.

DR

 

[Elind]

Because during colonial days, they were taught through permanent example by the colonial powers that violence is the way to rule, they were deliberately kept ignorant, poor, and so on, then after colonial days. Besides, 40 years is not a long period, especially when said period has been spent under the rule of a corrupt despot who could get away with almost anything as long as he would follow the party line of his masters in the developped world.

Spoken like true apologist.

The entire world was as it was in those days. Even the Americas were colonized in case you have forgotten. It's comments like "masters in the developed world" that make it hard to know where to start. Presumably you are one of those who applauded at the invasion of Iraq, to depose a perfect example of one such despot?

Most of the undeveloped world was composed of thousands of minor tribal kingdoms of one sort or another. You presumably would have argued that they be should have been left to their own devices (no exploration, no colonization etc.) so we could now have a UN of thousands of nations. The main borders all over the world were drawn by colonizers, and not always very cleverly, but then again, so were the borders of Europe at one time or another. That's human history and nature.

Some colonies benefited considerably from their colonizers. India is an example and most African nations gained structured governments that would have been impossible to achieve without countless civil and regional wars of conquest before their nations could become large enough to be called self sufficient in any way.

The problem is that the tribal cultures have persisted regardless (and some have of course continued to wage war). One can never have a nation when the primary allegiance is towards one's local tribe, rather than the country.

I venture that they would be much better off if the colonizers had stayed longer.

 

[Matteo Martini]

A disturbing story about an epidemic of rape and violence in Congo.

Sometimes I find it hard to understand why life is so different in some third-world countries. What is wrong with these people? Colonialism was a long time ago. At some point I don't think you can point to that as an excuse anymore. The current UN presence doesn't seem to be enough to solve the problem. Elections don't seem to have helped much. What to do?

Colonialism ended only 50 years ago, in many African countries.
To Europe it took about 500 years to develop from Middle Ages to Modern Era

 

[Matteo Martini]

But why the endemic violence? I think development could occur if there wasn't so much violence. How do you stop the violence and establish order?
Evidence that this God of yours really has grace, plz.

Europe was torn by wars that lasted hundred of years.
Hitler was not an African guy..

 

[Flo]

Spoken like true apologist.

Apologist of what ? (don't bother, I've got a good idea of what you're implying, every person trying to put the situation in Africa in perspective is called an apologist of the atrocities committed there by the apologists of colonization and of the bigoted view of Africans as retarded, just like those doubting the necessity of the war in Iraq can be called a Saddam's atrocities apologist).

The entire world was as it was in those days. Even the Americas were colonized in case you have forgotten. It's comments like "masters in the developed world" that make it hard to know where to start. Presumably you are one of those who applauded at the invasion of Iraq, to depose a perfect example of one such despot?

See ?

Most of the undeveloped world was composed of thousands of minor tribal kingdoms of one sort or another. You presumably would have argued that they be should have been left to their own devices (no exploration, no colonization etc.) so we could now have a UN of thousands of nations.

Europe was for a long time composed of hundreds of minor "tribal" kingdoms of one sort or another, and has been left to make its own fate. There's no reason why other continents shouldn't have had the same chance, and there's no reason to believe the world would necessary be the worse for it.

The main borders all over the world were drawn by colonizers, and not always very cleverly, but then again, so were the borders of Europe at one time or another. That's human history and nature.

And that human history and nature lead to great sufferings and problems.

Some colonies benefited considerably from their colonizers. India is an example and most African nations gained structured governments that would have been impossible to achieve without countless civil and regional wars of conquest before their nations could become large enough to be called self sufficient in any way.

I'm afraid that the recent history of the Indian sub-continent puts those benefits in a problematic light. As for Africa, I'm afraid that governments left by colonizers are not all that structured, and have nevertheless led to countless civil and regional wars ... Again, the benefits are a little hard to see.

The problem is that the tribal cultures have persisted regardless (and some have of course continued to wage war). One can never have a nation when the primary allegiance is towards one's local tribe, rather than the country.

Thanks for the cliché.

I venture that they would be much better off if the colonizers had stayed longer.

Spoken like an apologist, but given that most colonizers left in rather a hurry because they couldn't afford to keep those so well administered colonies, that's a bit rich.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Europe was for a long time composed of hundreds of minor "tribal" kingdoms of one sort or another, and has been left to make its own fate. There's no reason why other continents shouldn't have had the same chance, and there's no reason to believe the world would necessary be the worse for it.

Let 'em play. Water will find its own level.

I'm afraid that the recent history of the Indian sub-continent puts those benefits in a problematic light. As for Africa, I'm afraid that governments left by colonizers are not all that structured, and have nevertheless led to countless civil and regional wars ... Again, the benefits are a little hard to see.

If the lines on the map are wrong, then they need to redraw them. Funny old thing, it often takes a war to do that.

Spoken like an apologist, but given that most colonizers left in rather a hurry because they couldn't afford to keep those so well administered colonies, that's a bit rich.

The Brits were a bit better at leaving a good structure in place than their French, Spanish, and Portuguese brothers in Imperialism, but there is still that thorny problem of the lines on the map . . .

DR