The world is not static.
Obviously, but I don't see this union happening anytime soon.
The world is not static.
Obviously, but I don't see this union happening anytime soon.
State formation took 100s of years (prior to the information and global age) so obviously this has a ways to go.
no way thats going to work.Well since you brought it up.....:hugoehh:
.....this is what I'm hoping for.
trying to combine nations would fall into a frenzy, esp for resources and larger tribes scrambling for what they now deem 'officially' theirs.
no what thats going
no what thats going to work.
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.
yea tell them that. makes you no different than the europeans who don't understand nor respect centuries of tribalism.The concept of "the tribe" would be archaic.
yea tell them that. makes you no different than the europeans who don't understand nor respect centuries of tribalism.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
South (zulus), central (kongo kingdom) and east africa
THEY would have to draw the map, not a bunch of lame ass AAs.
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 countryColonialism destroyed all that-
wait what? :mjlolz:Us lame AAs are forming a southern base so perhaps they can learn by example.