African borders need to be redrawn, we can all agree on this but do have the stomach to stand aside?

I.AM.PIFF

You're minor, we're major
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
13,113
Reputation
11,670
Daps
40,755
State formation took 100s of years (prior to the information and global age) so obviously this has a ways to go.

Well, I'm speaking of current situation obviously. I'm no fortune teller nor can I forsee what will happen..
 

Tommy Knocks

retired
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
26,992
Reputation
6,690
Daps
71,589
Reppin
iPaag
no what thats going
Well since you brought it up.....:hugoehh:

5ebr4y.jpg


.....this is what I'm hoping for. :manny:
no way thats going to work. :heh:

it would have to be a shyt load of smaller nations. or same size nations but with tribes within correct borders.

trying to combine nations would fall into a frenzy, esp for resources and larger tribes scrambling for what they now deem 'officially' theirs.
 

2Quik4UHoes

Why you had to go?
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
63,122
Reputation
18,215
Daps
234,239
Reppin
Norfeast groovin…
no what thats going

no what thats going to work. :heh:

it would have to be a shyt load of smaller nations.

trying to combine nations would fall into a frenzy, esp for resources and larger tribes scrambling for what they now deem 'officially' theirs.

A lot of those smaller nations wouldn't work out either, wouldn't be enough resources for some and further breakups could cause more ethnic conflicts when one groups gets its own "nation" while they get nothing. To me, smaller countries will mean more dependance on the IMF/West unless you hit the resource jackpot. You'd literally need to make a country for every sizable ethnic group in the continent. Look at what's become of South Sudan, the northerners may have been a$$holes but the South fukked around and turned their guns on each other on some ethnic shyt. Ethnic nationalism does more harm than good in Africa, the politics has to grow into something more African and less European. That shyt is retarded. A regional nation with representation from all groups, current countries broken into smaller states within a regional nation, and those "states" in turn comprise "counties" for each group(kinda like how Ethiopia has a province for all major ethnic groups) so that way each group has a homeland.

Granted, combining these countries without any work being done prior on how resources, etc will be allocated would be disastrous. But with the groundwork being laid prior I could see this working as long as the resources are used for the betterment of the people/nation. Mind you, I'm considering East Africa when I speak on this not the other regions in that map.
 

Poitier

My Words Law
Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
69,412
Reputation
15,439
Daps
246,377
yea tell them that. makes you no different than the europeans who don't understand nor respect centuries of tribalism.

Those same Europeans were the most tribal group of people on Earth for the vast amount of human history.
 

Tommy Knocks

retired
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
26,992
Reputation
6,690
Daps
71,589
Reppin
iPaag
Those same Europeans were the most tribal group of people on Earth for the vast amount of human history.
exactly, and they are currently the tight group on the planet. I was just having a discussion about this with some chinese, and trying to convince them they should link up with japanese (umph) and koreans to form an eastern union that would EASILY eclipse the west....they declined. This is why the west, currently has an advantage. WWII made them racially aware and united. Hilters plan sorta worked indirectly on an international scale. the Balkans was the last frontier, and Russians are seen as Mongrels with asiatic blood, everyone else in europe are brothers, internationally....but within their own national borders.
 

Tommy Knocks

retired
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
26,992
Reputation
6,690
Daps
71,589
Reppin
iPaag
sun yat-sen was a chinese scholar that tried to form an Asian version of the EU without force, LONG BEFORE hilter and the japanese. Had they listened, theyd have been runnining the show. Take a look at the Sun Yat-Sen PanAsianism Speech. Im sure you can google it.

Gaddafi also had a simliar vision for africa in his green book.
 

Poitier

My Words Law
Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
69,412
Reputation
15,439
Daps
246,377
exactly, and they are currently the tight group on the planet. I was just having a discussion about this with some chinese, and trying to convince them they should link up with japanese (umph) and koreans to form an eastern union that would EASILY eclipse the west....they declined. This is why the west, currently has an advantage. WWII made them racially aware and united. Hilters plan sorta worked indirectly on an international scale. the Balkans was the last frontier, and Russians are seen as Mongrels with asiatic blood, everyone else in europe are brothers, internationally.

WWII? I'd say it started with the end of the War of the Roses and 100 years war. All those Germanic kingdoms became France, Spain, Germany, Britain, etc.. WWII just saw US dethrone Britain for good as the leader of the pack.

African Kingdoms never had the chance to do this because of colonialism but it will have to happen.

With an expanding population, these leaders will have to be on their A game or you will see 1 billion angry, young folk ready to put heads on spikes in the coming decades.

Intra-African trade is huge here. Manufacturing is huge. Local institutions are huge. These things don't get better than there will be more civil wars and balkanization.

A lot of those smaller nations wouldn't work out either, wouldn't be enough resources for some and further breakups could cause more ethnic conflicts when one groups gets its own "nation" while they get nothing. To me, smaller countries will mean more dependance on the IMF/West unless you hit the resource jackpot.

Part of me feels like balkanization happening then failing may be a means to an end, illustrating that consolidation needs to happen :yeshrug:

Africa needs a Japan, a Britain, a Germany, a Russia.....one country that is powerful enough to straighten the continent out.
 

Tommy Knocks

retired
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
26,992
Reputation
6,690
Daps
71,589
Reppin
iPaag
WWII? I'd say it started with the end of the War of the Roses and 100 years war. All those Germanic kingdoms became France, Spain, Germany, Britain, etc..

African Kingdoms never had the chance to do this because of colonialism but it will have to happen.


Africa needs a Japan, a Britain, a Germany, a Russia.....one country that is powerful enough to straighten the continent out.
wrong. South (zulus), central (kongo kingdom) and east africa, def got to do it. That's why I said the map can be either smaller or THE SAME size. parts of congo would go east which belongs to the Hutus, while our south can come to us, which is located in Angola who speak lingala, and RDC can as well, that would mean Congo remains relatively the same size. west africa is the most complex out of the bunch, and THEY would have to draw the map, not a bunch of lame ass AAs.
 

Poitier

My Words Law
Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
69,412
Reputation
15,439
Daps
246,377
South (zulus), central (kongo kingdom) and east africa

Colonialism destroyed all that

THEY would have to draw the map, not a bunch of lame ass AAs.

I don't think that a conscious drawing of the map will occur. It will either happen because of economics or because of coups and civil wars.

Us lame AAs are forming a southern base so perhaps they can learn by example.
 

Tommy Knocks

retired
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
26,992
Reputation
6,690
Daps
71,589
Reppin
iPaag
Colonialism destroyed all that-
actually no it didnt. much like the Kurds, despite the borders, they they know they are still brothers within the same tribe so if the re-org happens they'd all fall within agreed lines, like Kurdistan...which isnt even a country




Us lame AAs are forming a southern base so perhaps they can learn by example.
wait what? :mjlolz:
 
Top