[Kosh]

That's all I've got to say.



Alright, seriously, Africa was exploited and stripped of its natural resources by Europeans for hundreds of years, and now that the limited resources are being fought for by the natives who they rightfully belonged to, it's the natives' fault they can't stop fighting each other?

Before 1875 only a few places in Africa were colonized because of malaria. Decolonization started after world war 2, so "hundreds of years" is a bit suspect.

And to assume that the fault is solely with the Europeans is blatantly ignoring the fact that more than a few of those conflicts had been going on long before the Europeans showed up. If the colonizers are guilty of anything it's execerbating the conflicts by playing tribes off of one another (divide and conquer). What were the Zulu doing before the British conquered them? Conquering other tribes in the area. Imperialism is not a western invention.

Troll.

(Unless you're actually not aware of the reasons why Africa is in such a state of chaos...and who's responsible.)

No it's not a troll post, it's all about perspective. And I can cite another example of this, Latin America. Following decolonization in the early 19th century there were plenty of wars and political upheavals and so forth. It didn't settle down until recently (though it still has major problems with crime and poverty).

Africa had resources, they had just never had the capability to exploit them before the colonial powers came along and did that for them.  They just never actually saw the profits.

True.

[Nuclear1]

Before 1875 only a few places in Africa were colonized because of malaria. Decolonization started after world war 2, so "hundreds of years" is a bit suspect.

Fair enough.

And to assume that the fault is solely with the Europeans is blatantly ignoring the fact that more than a few of those conflicts had been going on long before the Europeans showed up. If the colonizers are guilty of anything it's execerbating the conflicts by playing tribes off of one another (divide and conquer). What were the Zulu doing before the British conquered them? Conquering other tribes in the area. Imperialism is not a western invention.

Yeah, but when the enlightened Europeans show up, their first thoughts weren't "golly, how do we settle these conflicts and maybe make better lives for these folks so we can all use Africa's resources?" but rather "Divide and conquer", just like you said.

And yeah, the colonial powers are guilty of exacerbating the conflicts, which is why in the age of global prosperity, Africa is still fighting 15th century conflicts with 21st century weapons.

[Mars]

It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.

[Kosh]

Yeah, but when the enlightened Europeans show up, their first thoughts weren't "golly, how do we settle these conflicts and maybe make better lives for these folks so we can all use Africa's resources?" but rather "Divide and conquer", just like you said.

Europeans at that time weren't exactly enlightened, given that they would often turn their guns on eachother, leading up to the worst wars in history. Most of Europe was still under the rule of kings, women had no rights. Although to their credit they did put some serious effort into abolishing the slave trade in the 19th century (after profiting from it for hundreds of years), better late than never I suppose.

And yeah, the colonial powers are guilty of exacerbating the conflicts, which is why in the age of global prosperity, Africa is still fighting 15th century conflicts with 21st century weapons.

It's entirely possible Africa would still be fighting those wars regardless of whether or not the colinizers meddled with their politics. In Latin America after independence there were multiple wars over territory and resources, even though in most countries (unlike in Africa) most of the native populations were destroyed, or at best greatly reduced. 

[Black Wolf]

It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.

A massive lie. They've had nothing more taken from them than the western countries, i.e. the really easy deposits, and in some cases not even them (due to access issues etc.). There's a reason africa is the most important part of the world for exploration companies these days.

[TrashMan]

Europeans at that time weren't exactly enlightened, given that they would often turn their guns on eachother, leading up to the worst wars in history. Most of Europe was still under the rule of kings, women had no rights. Although to their credit they did put some serious effort into abolishing the slave trade in the 19th century (after profiting from it for hundreds of years), better late than never I suppose.

I fail to see direct significane or link of this with enlightement.

In fact, with each passing days I'm more and more inclined to bring back kings and get rid of large, inefficient and corrupt senates/parlaments.
Better to have 1 crook than 300.

[iamzack]

tens of thousands of women are being brutally raped (sometimes with bayonets or branches or what have you) yearly, millions of people have already been slaughtered in genocides, the Lord's Resistance Army continues to kidnap thousands of children (boys for soldiers, girls for sex slaves), and then there's the diamond trade, children accused of witchcraft and murdered, nearly every woman cut apart with crude unclean tools, it goes on

but we're trying to "free" Iraq with hundreds of millions of dollars per day

[Androgeos Exeunt]

It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.

It would be the biggest lie in the world, actually, since Africa still has more resources than anywhere else in the world. Diamonds, for example, come from Africa. Sierra Leone, to be exact. And then there's this whole Savannah thing, if I'm not wrong.

[LordMelvin]

It would be a lie to say that Africa has been completely stripped of its resources.

even stipulating this, the facts are that;

a) the easily exploited resources were all stripped by colonial powers

b) and used to promote economic development in the European nations

thus leaving the post-colonial 'third world' nations at a double disadvantage when the colonial powers withdrew; No easily accessible resources to fuel development, and none of the industrial or political refinements that utilisation of said resources built in the colonial world.

This also leaves the underdeveloped countries vulnerable to continued post-colonial corporate exploitation, a la the open pit mines at Toquepala(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toquepala_mine), Kimbely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hole), Yanacocha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanacocha) and Nchanga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nchanga_Mines), just to name a few...

[Kosh]

thus leaving the post-colonial 'third world' nations at a double disadvantage when the colonial powers withdrew; No easily accessible resources to fuel development, and none of the industrial or political refinements that utilisation of said resources built in the colonial world.

Actually in several parts of west africa you can just pan for diamonds in the river. Also developing those resources isn't free, they do have to pay in order to even get access to them.


Africa has just about every kind of resource you can imagine, gold, oil, uranium, diamonds, extremely fertile soil in some places, it's just that too often the governments come in and pocket the wealth generated by mining. Take Nigeria, rather than use the wealth from the oil exploitation to build a real economy and infrastructure, that money instead disappears, taken by corrupt government officials. As long as that continues, Africans will never see anything come of their resources, regardless of who is mining it.