Ethiopia Protests thread

[Max B]

Pretty sad. I don't have shyt to say.

that would suck since alot of the resources are in oromia

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

that would suck since alot of the resources are in oromia

Resources are spread out but Oromia is vital since that's where the capitol is. It's just ironic that they hate this government but display its ugliest trait by continuing to politicize tribe. This is classic Balkanization. All those so called Ethiopian scholars that got this degree that degree but can't even figure out that this shyt helps no one.

It really sucks. I ask nikkaz "Aight, I feel you, the government is awful. But what's your plan?" nikkaz can't tell me shyt other than they want more cultural rights, want Orominya as a federal language, yadda yadda yadda. It's insane to me how they willingly dehumanize each other by Tigray, Oromo, Amhara, etc when all of them are fukkin Ethiopian. Smfh, when too many idiots got the floor this is what happens. An unstable Ethiopia might send the whole Horn into a state of chaos.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Pretty sad. I don't have shyt to say.

Sad indeed. Just hope my sister and brother-in law are okay. My brother in law is actually part Oromo and Amhara and has spoken negatively about the government.

Since I now have family in Ethiopia what happens in that country(and hell Africa) is more immediate to me than before.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Also I apologize for my slacking as a mod but @Sauanaffe Tustunnagee COOL IT with the flaming.

 

[Red Shield]

They really need to give each one of these tribes their own sovereign nations, these european created nations are nothing but a problem, same in Europe with those empire created states.

the ethnic cleansing and genocides that would be unleashed

 

[David_TheMan]

the ethnic cleansing and genocides that would be unleashed

Why would decoupling nations create ethnic cleansing and genocide?
It seems using the political system forced on them leads to that more than the alternative

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Why would decoupling nations create ethnic cleansing and genocide?
It seems using the political system forced on them leads to that more than the alternative

Many regions in Africa are ethnically mixed. For instance, if Biafra seceded from Nigeria tomorrow - 10,000,000 Igbos outside of Igboland might find themselves at the mercies of genocidal maniacs.

Rather than de-coupling nations outright, another solution must be found. States need to be restructured internally, giving more powers to ethno-linguistic communities.

 

[David_TheMan]

Many regions in Africa are ethnically mixed. For instance, if Biafra seceded from Nigeria tomorrow - 10,000,000 Igbos outside of Igboland might find themselves at the mercies of genocidal maniacs.

Rather than de-coupling nations outright, another solution must be found. States need to be restructured internally, giving more powers to ethno-linguistic communities.

Creating seperate states doesn't mean the new nation would suddenly kill a minority though, I think thats quite a jump to get there.

 

[Red Shield]

Why would decoupling nations create ethnic cleansing and genocide?
It seems using the political system forced on them leads to that more than the alternative

nations are gonna want to expand their border for a variety of reasons.

which will lead to conflict. and since they already know history...

so to handle those conflicts for good. some tribes will get that eternal rest..

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Creating seperate states doesn't mean the new nation would suddenly kill a minority though, I think thats quite a jump to get there.

Look at what happened in Europe from 1914-1945. The creation of ethnic nation-states meant that if you weren't a part of that ethnicity, the indigenes would force you out because you were a foreigner. This is why millions of Germans were pushed out of Eastern Europe in the 1940s. Not to mention the millions of Greeks which fled the Ottoman Empire.

If Tigrayans living in Oromia found themselves in a Oromo ethnic state, you think they'd just be welcomed??

 

[David_TheMan]

nations are gonna want to expand their border for a variety of reasons.

which will lead to conflict. and since they already know history...

so to handle those conflicts for good. some tribes will get that eternal rest..

You could use the exact same logic to argue there shouldn't be any states in Africa continent because states are going to want to expand their border. We know that isnt true.

I would agree a mechanism for peacefully handling international conflict would be helpful, but to claim it would automatically lead to war fair and expansion doesn't ring true to me.

Look at what happened in Europe from 1914-1945. The creation of ethnic nation-states meant that if you weren't a part of that ethnicity, the indigenes would force you out because you were a foreigner. This is why millions of Germans were pushed out of Eastern Europe in the 1940s. Not to mention the millions of Greeks which fled the Ottoman Empire.

If Tigrayans living in Oromia found themselves in a Oromo ethnic state, you think they'd just be welcomed??

1914 - 1945 hard to say the time line you mention was the creation of ethnic states, more than nation-states that tried to absorb different ethnicities. We can see WW1 was caused not by the Austro Hungarian empire not granting a ethnicity independence and autonomy, not the opposite. We see in WW2 it was USSR and Hitler expansion of their states that led to warfare, more so than different ethnic groups having autonomy in the regions they dominated. I would say the warfare in europe shows why peaceful balkinization of the nation-states of europe and africa is preferred and will bring about greater peace than enforcing arbitrary states created by the elite in europe in europe and in africa.

I would think if people had their respective states they would be free to go to their states if they felt threatened, but that said I don't think they would feel anymore threat living with the people they already live with than before, assuming a minority group doesn't try to usurp control of the respective state.

JMO though.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

1914 - 1945 hard to say the time line you mention was the creation of ethnic states, more than nation-states that tried to absorb different ethnicities. We can see WW1 was caused not by the Austro Hungarian empire not granting a ethnicity independence and autonomy, not the opposite. We see in WW2 it was USSR and Hitler expansion of their states that led to warfare, more so than different ethnic groups having autonomy in the regions they dominated. I would say the warfare in europe shows why peaceful balkinization of the nation-states of europe and africa is preferred and will bring about greater peace than enforcing arbitrary states created by the elite in europe in europe and in africa.

I would think if people had their respective states they would be free to go to their states if they felt threatened, but that said I don't think they would feel anymore threat living with the people they already live with than before, assuming a minority group doesn't try to usurp control of the respective state.

JMO though.

You misunderstand my point. When I referenced Europe in the first half of the 20th century, I was referring to the balkanization of Europe into nation-states. Multinational Empires like Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, German Empire became nation states like Slovenia, Albania, Poland etc. etc. Your assessment of European history is a bit off...

Anyway, in that process of Balkanization, over 60 million Europeans died! For some reason, you want that same process of continental destruction to occur in Africa. Also, bear in mind that the fate of Europe after the World Wars was left up to America (a non-European superpower) and the USSR (which was often viewed as more Asiatic than European).

Africa is much poorer than Europe. Your idea would destroy the continent forever and leave it in the hands of the Chinese and Americans

 

[Red Shield]

You could use the exact same logic to argue there shouldn't be any states in Africa continent because states are going to want to expand their border. We know that isnt true.

Not really.

and of course there would be some states that won't expand their borders. But those states have to worry about the ones who do.




At the end of the day, there is gonna be conflict either way. A shyt load of people are gonna die.

 

[Red Shield]

You misunderstand my point. When I referenced Europe in the first half of the 20th century, I was referring to the balkanization of Europe into nation-states. Multinational Empires like Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, German Empire became nation states like Slovenia, Albania, Poland etc. etc. Your assessment of European history is a bit off...

Anyway, in that process of Balkanization, over 60 million Europeans died! For some reason, you want that same process of continental destruction to occur in Africa. Also, bear in mind that the fate of Europe after the World Wars was left up to America (a non-European superpower) and the USSR (which was often viewed as more Asiatic than European).

Africa is much poorer than Europe. Your idea would destroy the continent forever and leave it in the hands of the Chinese and Americans

Don't think I would agree with that

 

[notPsychosiz]

Africa is much poorer than Europe. Your idea would destroy the continent forever and leave it in the hands of the Chinese and Americans

Africa is given less for its resources because the african warlords trade with cacs for pennies on the dollar to what the resources are worth.
They should end export dealings with cacs and work with China, Russia and the other SCO nations.

Murdering the dutch afrikkkaners and take back south africa would be a start.