Ethiopia Protests thread

[Red Shield]

His idea wouldn't destroy the continent forever

it would lead to a massive death toll tho. Some tribes would cease like the tasmanian aboriginals or taino

 

[David_TheMan]

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

I understand what you were refering to though, and I specifically pointed out especially with regard to Austria Hungrary that the wars were caused not by little countries fighting each other, but efforts of minority groups who felt they were not represented attempting to establish autonomy, this is the same for ottoman, german, USSR, and etc. My assessment isn't off, I think you are ignoring the cause of the conflict though, it wasn't the creation of the states, it was the consolidated government that didn't represent the small groups that caused the violence. IMHO.

Balkanization didn't account for over 60 million deaths, it wasn't the cause of WW1 or WW2. Those are other issues mainly to do with european elite, and the US's involvement in aiding the victor and refusing to mediate anything less than absolute surrender in both incidents that lead to the pointless deaths caused by the two WWs.

Africa being poorer than Europe matters little to what I've said.
How would breaking down artificial nations, and making individual governments smaller and responsible for an area composed by tribes destroy the continent and leave it in the hands of the Chinese and Americans? Honestly the state today with these thrown together nations with no care about the people and tribes inhabitating them causes a rush and fight for the centralized power, which in turn leads to the groups using the power to attack others, instead of seeking to co-operate it makes them adversarial by its very nature, which is already leading to the US, European powers, and soon Chinese taking advantage of the people and resources.

IMHO.

 

[David_TheMan]

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.

Again using your logic we could say the same about every country in the world at present. Its flawed logic, having a nation doesn't equate, guarantee, or mean their is a heavy impulse on invasion and expansion.
There is conflict when people feel they aren't being heard and they think they have to get it or someone else will.
If you can peacefully split, along tribal lines that majority recognize, then you would do will in stopping the competiting tribal issues in government, and transition more towards peaceful cooperation.

I look at the african situation the same way I look at the catalonians wanting to secede from spain, venetians wanting to secede from italy, scottish secession from the UK, UK secession from EU, Quebecan seccession from Canada. Texas from US. If you can secede and keep the peace what is the problem? The only problem is for those who want to consolidate power into one group. IMHO

 

[Misreeya]

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.

Not really, it depends on how you organize it. Although this is kind of a negative footage, but sending them back to their home land did work out, so it can work with the igbos to if they choose independence. Question what is your view of igbos creating a independent state?

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

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.

Hmm, that doesn't address how decades of genocidal war between Africans wouldn't make the continent poorer. Look at the devastation that World War I and World War II caused to Europe. Imagine that happening to Africa now.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

His idea wouldn't destroy the continent forever

it would lead to a massive death toll tho. Some tribes would cease like the tasmanian aboriginals or taino

You don't think decades of genocidal war wouldn't destroy Africa and leave it to be picked apart by foreigners? K

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

I understand what you were refering to though, and I specifically pointed out especially with regard to Austria Hungrary that the wars were caused not by little countries fighting each other, but efforts of minority groups who felt they were not represented attempting to establish autonomy, this is the same for ottoman, german, USSR, and etc. My assessment isn't off, I think you are ignoring the cause of the conflict though, it wasn't the creation of the states, it was the consolidated government that didn't represent the small groups that caused the violence. IMHO.

Balkanization didn't account for over 60 million deaths, it wasn't the cause of WW1 or WW2. Those are other issues mainly to do with european elite, and the US's involvement in aiding the victor and refusing to mediate anything less than absolute surrender in both incidents that lead to the pointless deaths caused by the two WWs.

Africa being poorer than Europe matters little to what I've said.
How would breaking down artificial nations, and making individual governments smaller and responsible for an area composed by tribes destroy the continent and leave it in the hands of the Chinese and Americans? Honestly the state today with these thrown together nations with no care about the people and tribes inhabitating them causes a rush and fight for the centralized power, which in turn leads to the groups using the power to attack others, instead of seeking to co-operate it makes them adversarial by its very nature, which is already leading to the US, European powers, and soon Chinese taking advantage of the people and resources.

IMHO.

1. Nationalism in Europe was a main driving cause for the World Wars in Europe. You're ignoring the impact of Serbian nationalism on Austria-Hungary...
2. Africa being poorer than Europe is relates to the fact that DECADES OF GENOCIDAL WAR would be more devastating to Africa than it was to Europe in the 20th century.
3. Smaller states are more easily controlled by outsiders. The aftermath of your wars will leave Africa in terrible shape. Outside powers will swoop in to gain control. It's a very easy concept to grasp...

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Not really, it depends on how you organize it. Although this is kind of a negative footage, but sending them back to their home land did work out, so it can work with the igbos to if they choose independence. Question what is your view of igbos creating a independent state?

There is no way that the secession of the Igbos would come under a peaceful process with tidy organization. It'd resemble India-Pakistan if we're lucky.

I'd like there to be a separate Igbo state but I recognize that under current conditions millions of my people will die. I'd rather just wait out the inevitable collapse of Nigeria than precipitate an action which would cause the genocide of my ethnic group - again.

 

[notPsychosiz]

Hmm, that doesn't address how decades of genocidal war between Africans wouldn't make the continent poorer. Look at the devastation that World War I and World War II caused to Europe. Imagine that happening to Africa now.

The continent is not and cannot be poor because it is resource heavy.
Do not mistake the ppl squandering and giving away resources with the country not having any resources.

Africans (the people, not the continent) are poor because they enter into terrible trade agreements with cacs.
Africa (the continent, not the people) is abundant and continues to be.

If they simply severed exploititive ties with western and european nations they would be an extrmely wealthy nation.

The european globes have you confused. They are not set to scale.

This is the actual size of the continents scaled acording to their size relative to one another.
Africa has as much land mass and more resources than the rest of the combined world.

They are only poor cause they let whites exploit them.
Notice the cacs in south africa aren't poor. The residents should start there. Butcher them, close the borders, stop providing foreign cacs with diamonds and electronic components, and that shyt would sort itself out quick. There are no massive diamond mines in America.
Places like California and London don't have the natural resources to make a laptop or cellphone. All that shyt is imported from Africa and Venesuala and Thiland and places like that.

You can't crank out electronic tantalum capacators from Ohio. You gotta go to the Congo.
And without shyt like that made out of Coltan and other minerals you are unfamiliar with in the US (unless you work in enginering or a lab field) you aren't mass preoducing anything more technically advanced than an old school Ford you gotta push start.

The tribal conflict you are describing is set up by warlords trying to control mining areas to barter with cacs, and lack of strong leadership caise of US interference.

When African countries have strong leaders like Gadafi, the US murders them.
Thats why really the africans should slaughter anything white-looking over there and then they can begin to regain their soveigrnty.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

You don't think decades of genocidal war wouldn't destroy Africa and leave it to be picked apart by foreigners? K

Don't know why they're surprised just look at the DRC...

 

[Bawon Samedi]

The continent is not and cannot be poor because it is resource heavy.
Do not mistake the ppl squandering and giving away resources with the country not having any resources.

Africans (the people, not the continent) are poor because they enter into terrible trade agreements with cacs.
Africa (the continent, not the people) is abundant and continues to be.

If they simply severed exploititive ties with western and european nations they would be an extrmely wealthy nation.

The european globes have you confused. They are not set to scale.

This is the actual size of the continents scaled acording to their size relative to one another.
Africa has as much land mass and more resources than the rest of the combined world.

They are only poor cause they let whites exploit them.
Notice the cacs in south africa aren't poor. The residents should start there. Butcher them, close the borders, stop providing foreign cacs with diamonds and electronic components, and that shyt would sort itself out quick. There are no massive diamond mines in America.
Places like California and London don't have the natural resources to make a laptop or cellphone. All that shyt is imported from Africa and Venesuala and Thiland and places like that.

You can't crank out electronic tantalum capacators from Ohio. You gotta go to the Congo.
And without shyt like that made out of Coltan and other minerals you are unfamiliar with in the US (unless you work in enginering or a lab field) you aren't mass preoducing anything more technically advanced than an old school Ford you gotta push start.

The tribal conflict you are describing is set up by warlords trying to control mining areas to barter with cacs, and lack of strong leadership caise of US interference.

When African countries have strong leaders like Gadafi, the US murders them.
Thats why really the africans should slaughter anything white-looking over there and then they can begin to regain their soveigrnty.

The bolded are a bunch of smart dumb talk. No offense.

 

[David_TheMan]

1. Nationalism in Europe was a main driving cause for the World Wars in Europe. You're ignoring the impact of Serbian nationalism on Austria-Hungary...
2. Africa being poorer than Europe is relates to the fact that DECADES OF GENOCIDAL WAR would be more devastating to Africa than it was to Europe in the 20th century.
3. Smaller states are more easily controlled by outsiders. The aftermath of your wars will leave Africa in terrible shape. Outside powers will swoop in to gain control. It's a very easy concept to grasp...

1) Unrepresentative government caused local confict, which could have been avoided completely if the large empires actually GAVE autonomy to the small groups, instead of trying to dominate them under central states by force. That said what caused WW1 and 2 was not nationalism, but international meddling by European powers, especially the UK Germany (WW1) which pushed for war, to undermine other powers and increase its own international trade strength. WW2 was a continuation of WW1,mainly a failure of WW1 peace accords which attacked germany and left it in economic ruins for the financial benefit of France and destablization in the benefit of the UK. Both wars were further expanded and lengthed by the entrance of the US, which discouraged (especially WW1) the earlier ending of the war in by negotiatiion, with preference for unconditional surrender. I'm not ignoring Serbian nationalism, I"m recognizing why the nationalist movements happened in the first place, there were not being recognized or being integrated into the ruling governments of the states they were apart of, which today causes the same wants to seperate in Europe and causes conflict and corruption in a lot of conflict in african states, where you see tribal conflict, not because they are of different tribes but because of the forced centralized states puts tribal benefit at the expense of the large euro created nation itself. Remove the issue that causes the conflict, which is the misuse of the centralized power.

2) Africa being poorer has no bearing on any argument I've made. You are the one trying to claim genocide and murder will occur because countries choose to peacefully desolve into smaller more representative states, yet you've not been able to prove why it would it occur logically. On top of that, you try to claim peaceful dissolution is what caused WW1 and WW2, it isn't, forced confederacy of nations caused conflict, world power economical meddling/sabotage caused the true spread of the conflict.

3) Smaller states are more easily controlled by outsiders, I disagree, and we can see easily that the larger states are totally controlled by outsiders now. So your first contention has no logical support. Less corrupt government that is more responsive to the people is more accountable and less able to be outside influenced than what is in place today IMHO. Hell this is the reason why secession is usually wanted, for the benefit of the people who aren't being heard. The aftermath wouldn't leave Africa in terrible shape, it would leave it in the shape to grow and develop with less centralized corruption, and less with less recipie for internal genocide because there will be no intertribal conflicts for power at the expense of others. Outside powers have already swooped in and already have control and its easier to do that when you can buy off a few to control many, than when you have to buy off many who are watched more easily, to control many. Yes, it is very easy concept to grasp that what you are claiming has shown in reality to not have any of the benefits you claim.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

1) Unrepresentative government caused local confict, which could have been avoided completely if the large empires actually GAVE autonomy to the small groups, instead of trying to dominate them under central states by force. That said what caused WW1 and 2 was not nationalism, but international meddling by European powers, especially the UK Germany (WW1) which pushed for war, to undermine other powers and increase its own international trade strength. WW2 was a continuation of WW1,mainly a failure of WW1 peace accords which attacked germany and left it in economic ruins for the financial benefit of France and destablization in the benefit of the UK. Both wars were further expanded and lengthed by the entrance of the US, which discouraged (especially WW1) the earlier ending of the war in by negotiatiion, with preference for unconditional surrender. I'm not ignoring Serbian nationalism, I"m recognizing why the nationalist movements happened in the first place, there were not being recognized or being integrated into the ruling governments of the states they were apart of, which today causes the same wants to seperate in Europe and causes conflict and corruption in a lot of conflict in african states, where you see tribal conflict, not because they are of different tribes but because of the forced centralized states puts tribal benefit at the expense of the large euro created nation itself. Remove the issue that causes the conflict, which is the misuse of the centralized power.

2) Africa being poorer has no bearing on any argument I've made. You are the one trying to claim genocide and murder will occur because countries choose to peacefully desolve into smaller more representative states, yet you've not been able to prove why it would it occur logically. On top of that, you try to claim peaceful dissolution is what caused WW1 and WW2, it isn't, forced confederacy of nations caused conflict, world power economical meddling/sabotage caused the true spread of the conflict.

3) Smaller states are more easily controlled by outsiders, I disagree, and we can see easily that the larger states are totally controlled by outsiders now. So your first contention has no logical support. Less corrupt government that is more responsive to the people is more accountable and less able to be outside influenced than what is in place today IMHO. Hell this is the reason why secession is usually wanted, for the benefit of the people who aren't being heard. The aftermath wouldn't leave Africa in terrible shape, it would leave it in the shape to grow and develop with less centralized corruption, and less with less recipie for internal genocide because there will be no intertribal conflicts for power at the expense of others. Outside powers have already swooped in and already have control and its easier to do that when you can buy off a few to control many, than when you have to buy off many who are watched more easily, to control many. Yes, it is very easy concept to grasp that what you are claiming has shown in reality to not have any of the benefits you claim.

Before I plunge into my response are you a Black African? Have you been to Africa? Have you studied Africa?

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

1) Unrepresentative government caused local confict, which could have been avoided completely if the large empires actually GAVE autonomy to the small groups, instead of trying to dominate them under central states by force. That said what caused WW1 and 2 was not nationalism, but international meddling by European powers, especially the UK Germany (WW1) which pushed for war, to undermine other powers and increase its own international trade strength. WW2 was a continuation of WW1,mainly a failure of WW1 peace accords which attacked germany and left it in economic ruins for the financial benefit of France and destablization in the benefit of the UK. Both wars were further expanded and lengthed by the entrance of the US, which discouraged (especially WW1) the earlier ending of the war in by negotiatiion, with preference for unconditional surrender. I'm not ignoring Serbian nationalism, I"m recognizing why the nationalist movements happened in the first place, there were not being recognized or being integrated into the ruling governments of the states they were apart of, which today causes the same wants to seperate in Europe and causes conflict and corruption in a lot of conflict in african states, where you see tribal conflict, not because they are of different tribes but because of the forced centralized states puts tribal benefit at the expense of the large euro created nation itself. Remove the issue that causes the conflict, which is the misuse of the centralized power.

2) Africa being poorer has no bearing on any argument I've made. You are the one trying to claim genocide and murder will occur because countries choose to peacefully desolve into smaller more representative states, yet you've not been able to prove why it would it occur logically. On top of that, you try to claim peaceful dissolution is what caused WW1 and WW2, it isn't, forced confederacy of nations caused conflict, world power economical meddling/sabotage caused the true spread of the conflict.

3) Smaller states are more easily controlled by outsiders, I disagree, and we can see easily that the larger states are totally controlled by outsiders now. So your first contention has no logical support. Less corrupt government that is more responsive to the people is more accountable and less able to be outside influenced than what is in place today IMHO. Hell this is the reason why secession is usually wanted, for the benefit of the people who aren't being heard. The aftermath wouldn't leave Africa in terrible shape, it would leave it in the shape to grow and develop with less centralized corruption, and less with less recipie for internal genocide because there will be no intertribal conflicts for power at the expense of others. Outside powers have already swooped in and already have control and its easier to do that when you can buy off a few to control many, than when you have to buy off many who are watched more easily, to control many. Yes, it is very easy concept to grasp that what you are claiming has shown in reality to not have any of the benefits you claim.

Re: Your first point
We agree a lot on the cause of ethnic nationalism within multinational states (particularly in the European context). However, the answer need not be secession all the time. Especially given the consequences of ethno-nationalism on a continent like Africa. I'll explain further in my second reply.

Re: Your second point
Africa being poorer does have a bearing. Why don't you realize that decades of warfare on a continent that's already poor will leave it poorer?
War is among the most destructive things you can do to a nation. If you want Africa to progress, why more war? War is a huge part of the reason why the DRC is so fukked up today. War is the biggest reason why Ethiopia's GDP per capita/human capital is so low. Ask the South Sudanese is they want more war.

- What's also curious is that you're trying to put words in my mouth. Genocide/ethnic cleansing can occur within peaceful and non-peaceful contexts. I've already given you past examples. Your decision to ignore India-Pakistan partition and Nigeria's Civil War is a huge detriment to your arguments.

- Finally, I never claimed that peaceful dissolution led to the World Wars. I claimed that ethnic nationalism did.

Re: Your third point

Umm....you're argument is that large states in Africa already controlled by outsiders. You don't believe that if African states were on average the size of Benin that the continent would be weak? Do you not understand that there's a correlation between state size and power???
Look at China, India, the US, Russia etc. etc. Do you think it's a coincidence that they all have over 100 million people?

- There's no guarantee that there'd be less corruption in these small ethnic states. You can't prove that there would be. Moreover, internal African conflicts would decrease in exchange for external African conflicts. Moreover, how are you going to divide African states? Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups. You want all of these groups to have a country?

In conclusion, you're going to do a lot of leg-work to prove your claims given that they have no basis in reality/do not negate the harms I've outlined.

 

[Sauanaffe Tustunnagee]

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

but i constructively criticizing my lost African brethren to enlighten/not insult