Obama's new African adventure: Hunting LRA

[Eddie Dane]

I am American, but I have a lot of family in Nigeria. Mostly Bini and Igbo




Great points, I think the best thing that could happen, is for ethnic groups to break into smaller individual nations. That would resolve most of the conflicts itself. There is a lot of tension in Nigeria right now between the north and the south, mostly the Muslims and the Christians. The Southeast has wanted to break away for decades, but now the southwest is even considering breaking away.

It would be much easier if there were separate lands for the Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, and Yoruba. It would prevent a lot of the sectarian violence that is occurring. While Nigeria is more stable than most nations in Africa, most of the fighting that is occurring is either for ethnic reasons or financial ones (one group dominates a resource the other one wants and or needs). It would be more beneficial for Africa to break into these small nations and do a sort of EU style federation. That would have a lot more benefit than the “pseudo” nations that currently exist here.

Nigeria has considered the prospect for quite some time now. I don’t have any clue about South Africa. I suspect since most South African blacks have had to unite in the struggle against apartheid that many of the ethnic issues which plague most of Africa would’ve subsided long ago in South Africa. This of course is a general assumption.

Interesting take. Obviously the way the countries were created was ridiculous. (Same goes for Iraq BTW).
But breaking the countries up along (mostly) ethnic lines would also be a violent affair would it not?
Again: to compare with Iraq. The oil is mostly in the Kurdish and Shia parts of the country and the (previously dominant) Sunnis don't want the state to break up as they would lose most of the natural resources.
OTOH, I never see these countries function under the current conditions, so a radical re-appraisal of the situation may be in order.

ETA: I'd like to add that I tend to be in favour of separation movements. It seems to be a bias I have.
I'm an Israel supporter, but would also like a viable Palestinian state. The one country option sounds completely insane to me, what are these people smoking?
I'm in favour of Kosovo, Free Kurdistan, Sudan etc.

 

[L.Y.S.]

But breaking the countries up along (mostly) ethnic lines would also be a violent affair would it not?

It already is violent, what more do these nations have to lose? There is more violence by them being forced together in the first place. I think we would see a drastic drop in violence because most nations would have their own borders and there wouldn't be cross border ethnic issues any longer.

OTOH, I never see these countries function under the current conditions, so a radical re-appraisal of the situation may be in order.

Exactly

ETA: I'd like to add that I tend to be in favour of separation movements. It seems to be a bias I have.
I'm an Israel supporter, but would also like a viable Palestinian state. The one country option sounds completely insane to me, what are these people smoking?
I'm in favour of Kosovo, Free Kurdistan, Sudan etc.

I generally favor nations to stay united "UNLESS" it is a complete failure and certain groups no longer want to be together. This is the case throughout most of Africa. It is getting so violent that people no longer wish to be in nations which don't recognize their cultural rights and sovereignty. The breakup of arbitrary and false nations should be expected as time goes on. It is only natural for colonialism to wear off after a while.

 

[Eddie Dane]

It already is violent, what more do these nations have to lose? There is more violence by them being forced together in the first place. I think we would see a drastic drop in violence because most nations would have their own borders and there wouldn't be cross border ethnic issues any longer.



Exactly



I generally favor nations to stay united "UNLESS" it is a complete failure and certain groups no longer want to be together. This is the case throughout most of Africa. It is getting so violent that people no longer wish to be in nations which don't recognize their cultural rights and sovereignty. The breakup of arbitrary and false nations should be expected as time goes on. It is only natural for colonialism to wear off after a while.

Obviously some separatist movements are drama queens. ETA for instance.
Compare the position of the Basques with the people of South Sudan.

BTW: I was on a skiing trip in north Italy. The people there are culturally Austrian.
The region got reshuffled after WWII.
They are not bombing police stations, but they're not happy either. It seemed like a rather unnatural situation.

 

[Joey McGee]

Study released Oct 6
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
necsi.edu/research/social/scienceofpeace.pdf

Related Wired Article Oct 11
Computational Model of Peace Predicts Social Violence, Harmony

Though tests of the model, developed by network theorists at the New England Complex Systems Institute, are still in early stages — Switzerland is the third country to be analyzed — they raise the alluring possibility that propensities to social violence can be formally quantified, predicted and even prevented.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Obviously some separatist movements are drama queens. ETA for instance.
Compare the position of the Basques with the people of South Sudan.

Correct, the ETA movement is, so-so. I don't see Spaniards killing or depriving Basque citizens. South Sudan kept getting bombed the hell out of by the Arabic north. The Bantu and Saharan southerners had enough and broke off.

BTW: I was on a skiing trip in north Italy. The people there are culturally Austrian.
The region got reshuffled after WWII.
They are not bombing police stations, but they're not happy either. It seemed like a rather unnatural situation.

And while it is certainly a displeasing situation, not all border disputes are perfect and cannot be easily resolved. However, there is still a nation for Austrians, should Italian Austrians become disgruntled and seek to leave Italy. The same cannot be said about Africa. There is no "safe-haven" for most ethnic groups. There is no Igboland, Yorubaland, or Hausaland. All just mushed together and forced to deal with each other in Nigeria.

 

[Virus]

But the sheer number of tribes, religions and ethnicities would make it impossible to achieve pure states without massive amounts of ethnic cleansing.

 

[L.Y.S.]

But the sheer number of tribes, religions and ethnicities would make it impossible to achieve pure states without massive amounts of ethnic cleansing.

Not true. Most of the ethnic groups in Africa are related to another group and share space with them commonly. So while and "Igboland" would be fore Igbo's it would also be fore other smaller groups who speak similar languages like the Ikwerre, Ika, Izi, and many more. Most Sub-Saharan Africans can speak more than one language. Generally groups with long shared cultural histories don't mind sharing space, speaking one anothers' language and exchanging cultures. Yet, another misconception about Africa we can bury .

ETA: What does need to happen in peaceful consolidation and standardnization. This would make it easier for groups to communicate and exchange ideas. Many European languages serve these functions, but many have suggested local alternatives.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Many African countries were better off under colonialism.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Leopold_ii_garter_knight.jpg

 

[WildCat]

western imperialism had nothing to do with africa's problems?
wow....really??

Because prior to "western imperialism" there was no ethnic, religious, tribal or clan conflicts in all of Africa!

 

[L.Y.S.]

Because prior to "western imperialism" there was no ethnic, religious, tribal or clan conflicts in all of Africa!

Blanket generalization that is in accurate.

Western arrival actually militarized Africa. Many Africans began to adopt warrior cultures. Great paper written on this subject, and it has sources.

The era of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a defining period in the demographic, social, political, and economic development of four continents. While Western European states were able to consolidate their domestic identity and power through the exploitation of the global system of trade, the effects on West African and Caribbean societies were far more destructive. In many regions of Africa, especially on the western coast, the political landscape and societal organization were reworked into highly militarized states based on the export of human labourers. In the Caribbean region, caste/class slave societies arose in which the enslavement of the overwhelming majority of the population was enforced by law. In both cases, the slave trade worked to undermine the legitimacy of political institutions and sustain large gulfs between the interests of the ruling classes and those of the common people.

While Western Europe benefited economically and was able to consolidate political and social identities in relation to the rest of the world, much of Africa and the Caribbean was destabilized, creating crises in nearly every aspect of society. Western Europe also experienced similar problems of unrest and revolution, but because of its dominance of the rest of the world the pressures that caused destabilization were of a different nature. Although the types of societal transformations throughout both Africa and the Caribbean varied, certain trends were evident in each region. In West Africa, elites profited greatly from the slave trade and thus used it to their own advantage within increasingly stratified and highly militarized states. In the Caribbean, the indigenous population was wiped out and replaced with a new economic and social order in which the overwhelming majority of the population was African and enslaved, with a small European and mixed race plantocracy. The emergence of these types of societies during the globalizing process of the trans-Atlantic slave trade had enormous impact on the development of each of these regions.

 

[WildCat]

Western arrival actually militarized Africa.

Absolute nonsense. African empires existed long before western influence, certainly before the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Absolute nonsense. African empires existed long before western influence, certainly before the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

I've provided you with a source, yet you still resort to these claims. It is generally understood that the slave trade morphed how Africa operated.

 

[WildCat]

I've provided you with a source, yet you still resort to these claims. It is generally understood that the slave trade morphed how Africa operated.

If your source claims there were no militarized empires in Africa prior to the trans-Atlantic slave trade it discredits itself right there, because we know that is a false claim. I can name several African empires that pre-date the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and they became empires through military might.

Oh well, see now you're shifting the goal posts to "the slave trade morphed how Africa operated". So did the discovery of diamonds, gold, oil, Islam, Christianity, etc etc.

 

[L.Y.S.]

If your source claims there were no militarized empires in Africa prior to the trans-Atlantic slave trade it discredits itself right there, because we know that is a false claim. I can name several African empires that pre-date the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and they became empires through military might.

Oh well, see now you're shifting the goal posts to "the slave trade morphed how Africa operated". So did the discovery of diamonds, gold, oil, Islam, Christianity, etc etc.

It didn't, you just didn't read it.

 

[WildCat]

It didn't, you just didn't read it.

So why did you summarize it thusly:

Western arrival actually militarized Africa. Many Africans began to adopt warrior cultures. Great paper written on this subject, and it has sources.

So your summary is wrong?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Yesterday I watched the final battle scene from Zulu Dawn on Youtube.

Very well done and with real Zulus playing the Zulus.
It seems to be historically accurate.

Holy crap, those guys could open a can of whoop-ass.

 

[L.Y.S.]

So why did you summarize it thusly:

So your summary is wrong?

Just no, I did not say that there was "no" military action in Africa pre-European arrival, just that there was the militarization of Africa when Europe had arrived. It is well understood that Western Europe helped to increase militarization in Africa (especially West Africa) for the capturing of slaves. Warrior cultures that did not exist before came into existence.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Most empires in Africa were based on trade. Slavery was a form of trade, but one that required increased militarization of the population. Empires in Africa were not like their traditional western or Asian counterparts. War was not the primary unifying force. For the most part, trade, vital resources, or cultural exchange was the unifying force in Africa. That began to change with the arrival of Islam into Sub-Saharan Africa, and of course as previously mentioned western arrival and need for slaves.

 

[JihadJane]

'Let's end the myths of Britain's imperial past

David Cameron would have us look back to the days of the British empire with pride. But there is little in the brutal oppression and naked greed with which it was built that deserves our respect'

"Britain's empire was established, and maintained for more than two centuries, through bloodshed, violence, brutality, conquest and war. Not a year went by without large numbers of its inhabitants being obliged to suffer for their involuntary participation in the colonial experience. Slavery, famine, prison, battle, murder, extermination – these were their various fates.

Yet the subject peoples of empire did not go quietly into history's goodnight. Underneath the veneer of the official record exists a rather different story. Year in, year out, there was resistance to conquest, and rebellion against occupation, often followed by mutiny and revolt – by individuals, groups, armies and entire peoples. At one time or another, the British seizure of distant lands was hindered, halted and even derailed by the vehemence of local opposition."

 

[Virus]

'Let's end the myths of Britain's imperial past

David Cameron would have us look back to the days of the British empire with pride. But there is little in the brutal oppression and naked greed with which it was built that deserves our respect'

"Britain's empire was established, and maintained for more than two centuries, through bloodshed, violence, brutality, conquest and war. Not a year went by without large numbers of its inhabitants being obliged to suffer for their involuntary participation in the colonial experience. Slavery, famine, prison, battle, murder, extermination – these were their various fates.

Yet the subject peoples of empire did not go quietly into history's goodnight. Underneath the veneer of the official record exists a rather different story. Year in, year out, there was resistance to conquest, and rebellion against occupation, often followed by mutiny and revolt – by individuals, groups, armies and entire peoples. At one time or another, the British seizure of distant lands was hindered, halted and even derailed by the vehemence of local opposition."

The myths and oversimplifications mostly come from the Marxists and hard left. Interesting, because Marxist fanatics practised a vicious and brutal imperialism of their own. The late British Empire was a liberal empire that did a lot of good. Most countries they ruled fell into decay when they left. That should give you a hint about who's to blame for what.

Before the age of liberal empires, they did horrible things. But back then everyone was an imperialist. Europe was just better at it because it achieved a level of cultural supremacy greater than anything ever seen in history. The Ottomans were not liberal, the African empires were not liberal, the Chinese empire was not liberal. All of them had slaves and took what they wanted if they could.

It's complicated and nuanced. Explaining it to a hard leftist from the affluent West isn't easy because it's in their DNA to hate themselves and their culture.