NationStates Jolt Archive

Just out of curiousity, what does Europe plan to do about Africa?
Seriosuly, you guys have been ruling there since, what, the 1600's? Destroying various cultures and making everybody into good happy little colonist-subjects, then in a few years between 1950-75 you just sort of...leave and expect them to do everything right all by themselves?

(Actually, I was just curious to see how people planned on blaming the situation on the US)

After WW2 America 'encouraged' Britain to give up its colonies.

And your point is...

Actually, we only really started setting colonies up properly in the 1800's before that it was just Cape Colony (South Africa, which you'll note is doing quite well). As you also noted there were civilisations there before Europeans arrived, so it isn't like Africans are incapable- far from it, they are just as capable as any other group.
No matter how Europe had disengaged from Africa, there would have been turmoil and unrest. At least most countries left without too much bloodshed, look at South America, they left mainly via revolts and the like and they still had several very bloody wars afterwards. True, colonialism has caused enormous problems for Africa in the present, but there is a fine line between peace-keeping and stationing large armies in someone else's territory.

And your point is...
I see alot of complaints about the US entering/leaving various countries and messing them up, Europe did it to an entire continient.
Or you could read the bit at the bottom of my post.

What does Europe plan to do?

Seriously, lets think about this one:

They put international pressure on the governments, and occasionally interfere with the place directly. What do you want? Set up a government? Isn't that exactly what imperialism was? The idea that we're smarter then them, so we can design their government and culture rather then letting them rule themselves. (The "We" used was more of a cosmic sense, not actually reflecting the idea that I think I'm superior to anyone else.)

What do you want Europe to do, reconquer? Theirs nothing to do, at least on an official level. Money donated is used by warlords half the time, corrupt dictators the other half, and maybe a tenth of it goes to the intended purpose. I know my numbers dont add up, I'm generalizing.

So, if Europe has done so badly so far, what should it do?

LMFAO!!! EVEN WHEN EUROPEANS HAVE A PROBLEM, THEY BLAME IT ON AMERICA!!! IT'S HILLARIOUS!!! THEY'D BLAME THE EXTINCTION OF THE DINOSOURS ON AMERICANS IF THEY COULD!

And America didn't encourage anything. Churchhill had a choice. He could either start to slowly give up the Brittish Empire as FDR suggested or not have American help, which at the time in ilke 1940 or 41, wouldn't have done much good anyway. It wasn't America's fault though since America didn't back that and didn't even know about it. Don't blame something FDR put on the table on Americans. Americans were for isolation then and Churchill accepted the deal.

(Actually, I was just curious to see how people planned on blaming the situation on the US)

Really? You must be pretty bored.

Actually, we only really started setting colonies up properly in the 1800's before that it was just Cape Colony (South Africa, which you'll note is doing quite well).

saddly, I think was doing quite well would now be the more appropriate term

(South Africa, which you'll note is doing quite well).

Yeah, after apartheid(sp?) was abolished.

I see alot of complaints about the US entering/leaving various countries and messing them up, Europe did it to an entire continient.
Or you could read the bit at the bottom of my post.

That wasn't a response to you.

You know, it wasn't just Britain that was giving up colonies, so don't go blaming Churchill explictly. Britain and France both gave up their colonies at about the same time.

South Africa is doing well. It wasn't doing as well while apartheid was around. But you will note that they solved that problem themselves. It wasn't like somebody came in and told them to give it up.

Too Much Information - Overheating!!!!!

America didn't encourage anything.

The United States did more than just 'encourage.' America actively delayed the re-entry of British troops into colonies liberated from the Japanese, in order to give local nationalist movements a chance to organise themselves.

If that isn't acting to bring about the end of Empire I don't know what is.

I'm not. I was just pointing out that the guys first argument about America encouraging for Britan to give up it's colonies was a bad one.

The Japanese only conquered Burma, Malaya and Pacific Islands off Britain, though. Burma was given its independence, Malaya admitedly secured its own and the Pacific Islands stayed happyish (By which I mean they did not revolt) colonies for several decades thereafter. In fact these had nothing to do with Africa, which started getting independance only in the mid 50's.

Africa is a horrible place that should be evacuated and then nuked. All that comes out of Africa are fucked up jungle diseases.

Oh? Where would you put the 800,000,000 refugees?

antarctica

Africa is a horrible place that should be evacuated and then nuked. All that comes out of Africa are fucked up jungle diseases.
What about the animals? You can't nuke them. I won't let you. ::runs and saves all animals in Africa::

Just out of curiousity, what does Europe plan to do about Africa?
Seriosuly, you guys have been ruling there since, what, the 1600's? Destroying various cultures and making everybody into good happy little colonist-subjects, then in a few years between 1950-75 you just sort of...leave and expect them to do everything right all by themselves?

(Actually, I was just curious to see how people planned on blaming the situation on the US)
Right now, Europe is planning to screw Africa over completely with the Common External Tariff being set far too high for African nations to compete in Europe or with European countries.

And the US plans to screw Africa over using the WTO, IMF and IBRD to force free markets upon African nations in return for foreign aid which just leads to foreign debt anyway. In fact, the US is worse because of that dould whammy - forced removal of subsidies on native goods while subsidised US goods flood in, destroying the nation, and the whole foreign aid thing just leading straight to debt. And don't try to claim the those organsations are completely independent of the US - I suppose it's coincidence that their policies are the same and they are all based in the US.

There. I managed to blame the US for the state of Africa. Happy?

In fact these had nothing to do with Africa

It may have had nothing to do with Africa but it is indicative of an American trend of working towards bringing about an end to the British Empire.

Geeze, you guys are debating about this as if Africa was some great thriving continent until the *evil* empires came and *destroyed* it, the simple fact is Africa had more or less the same problems it has today, if anything the European empires brought civilisation and technology over to the Africans just like how the Romans gave so much to the conquered inhabitants of Europe.

Bsides, no country has a clean slate, lets not forget America virtually wiping out the native indian tribes, putting Cuba into economic slavery after *liberating* it from Spain and attacking many 3rd world countries many times to reap the rewards

Yeah, after apartheid(sp?) was abolished.
Actually since the end of apartheid it's been going downhill with S-Africa.

Actually, we only really started setting colonies up properly in the 1800's before that it was just Cape Colony (South Africa, which you'll note is doing quite well).

South Africa is not doing "quite well." Rampant corruption, all-pervasive crime, a murder rate that is seven times higher than that of the U.S. (proportionately), widespread unemployment, the highest rape rate in the world, widespread drug trafficking, massive poverty, and one of the highest rates of HIV on the planet, are all characteristics of South Africa.

Actually since the end of apartheid it's been going downhill with S-Africa.

Exactly! Yes, apartheid was of course pure evil, but post-apartheid S. Africa isn't the rosy paradise leftists would have you believe.

Well, I think that these European nations with their weakened armies and navies simply couldn't hold on to their holdings any more... Their was not a year in the history of the British Empire when they weren't waging a war against natives somewhere. Same for the French.

...Yeah....and maybe those two world wars had something to do with it.....just maybe

Well, perhaps South Africa isn't doing so great, then. I thought all that crime was easing off, but apparently not.

The French could hold on to their colonies, it just wasnt viable. It took 500,000 to quell Algeria, and it basically worked, but it wasnt worth it, so de gualle left. Vietnam, the French could have kept it if the americans had sent a few bombers to help at dien bien phu...but eisenhower refused.

As for now, they should keep doing what they are doing. Limited help, direct intervention when things get really bad.

The French couldn't have held onto their colonies without Marshal Aid though.

conclusion: without the empires Africa would still be one big rock covered in dust with a few dancing africans believeing they could change the weather just by singing, we brought them the concepts of actually exploring and advancing for the greater good of their race, they wanted independance, we granted them the freedom they sought, now they have problems and many left wingers blame the old empires for it, im sure that one day a new problem will threaten africa and everyon1 will try and blame the old empires, pfff.

You know who did wonders for Africa? Mussolini!

Leftists always bitch about how "evil" imperialism was (which it was in some ways), yet refuse to acknowledge that the post-imperialism Third World is much, much worse off. Then again, that's the trouble with many leftists. They see everything in black and white.