Imperialism / Colonialism to save Africa ?

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

I read somewhere that in certain circles, one of the most attractive solutions for Africa's problems is a new colonialism, carried out by nations such as Britain, France, America, Spain and Australia.

This solution was proposed after the president of south africa had a very long and falsified rant about how the british empire did nothing but cause africa all of its modern racial problems, cause instability, lawlessness and all of the food shortages.

One look at african history will show this to be wrong, as although the british used rather heavy handed methods to achieve their aims (see: Zulu), when they did run a country it was run with european laws and values, instead of tribal idiocies.

After a half century of decent government and moderate prosperity (Zimbabwe used to be a proserperous farming state, instead of a warzone), african nations followed others such as India into independance. They then began to degenerate back into their former anarchy, tribal wars, despotic presidents, un-ending civil wars.

The british empire imposed british rule, laws, rulers and built up the armies of each state to deal with problems, it also modernized these states, helped them to balance their strengths with their weaknesses (also allowing certain countries to begin gold and diamond mining).

Corrupt african dictators now siphon off aid money into foreign bank accounts for their own gain, caring little for the starvation of their people or how the rest of the world percieves them. Their are some examples of proper government, just not all that many.

In his highly trendy-oh-so-politically-empire-slamming speech, ther south african president forgot to mention how post colonial south africa instituted the apartheid, or how robert mugabe is basically a racist thug given government.

What are people's thoughts on this idea ? I've tried to balance both sides of the argument, but im sure others will have more ideas/information.

Anything constructive will be appriciated, and anyone who feels like a standard issue empire bashing rant, remember that communism built one of the biggest empires of the 20th century.

[zangetsu]

What utter bullshit

Apartheid is the avatar of collonialism- -, just because it mostly took place outside of the British empire doesnt mean it can be moraly and historicly distant from it. After WWII world opinion drifted away from Collonialism... The system of Appartheid for a long time was instituted while South Africa was under the constitutional durastiction of Brittain, and Brittain did nothing. It was South Africa that severed it ties with Brittain, not the other way round.

You raise many other ideas in your post... i disagree with most of them. European values bah... Collonialism was an economic rape of Africa, sanctioned with the guise of spreading Christianity and bringing civilization to the savages. African economies were set up to export raw materials, all the infrastructure was geared towards this. Some countries were even set up so that they didnt produce enough food so it would be imported.

The European populations in Portugeuse collonies were even encouraged to dominate and subjugate the locals...

Not to mention that fact that Collonialism was fucking barbaric! umm.... how many people did Brittain kill in Mozimbique... Lumumba...

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Not as many as are killed now in tribal wars, regular uprisings about something, i mean some countries even let cannibalism happen, something wrong there methink.

And yes, the countries were geared towards providing natural materials for various things, but at least it gave those countries a purpose, employment etc, civil wars and this wonderfully genocidal independace isnt doing anything.

Also i think the african countries would benefit with regards to the AID's crisis, since most leaders just pocket 80-90% of any money sent to help.

And your point about the portugese, well, thats why they, the french, the germans and various others havent been considerd for this scheme. The people have some knowledge of history, and dont want endless repeats.

And the entire world did quite a lot to end apartheid and world racism in general. I have a friend who once lived a very opulent life in south africa. Shes white, she told me it was hell on earth. Remember Nelson Mandela ? He was british and western backed, and he did quite a decent job methinks.

[zangetsu]

this is a quote from a text book partly written that guy who robbed banks in America to send money to Africa, who was later found by the FBI in South Africa and sent back ;__;

A final word on the effects of colonialism:

In many ways, solonialism divided the African population in order to conquer.Yet the structure of colonial society also put some Africans in positions in which they could press for change in a number of ways. The educated elite, because of their academic skills, were able to express their grievances in written documents. In many cases, they had the ability to communicate to people in other parts of the wold to make their situation known. The working class also had its points of power. A strike by the colonial workforce could bring production to a halt - and cut into profits of the colonialists. For, although the colonialists ruled Africans, they were also dependant upon African labour. Even in the settler homes, a "go-slow" or desertion by a domestic worker could make life very difficult for the European population who were often unaccustomed to washing their own clothes, cleaning their homes, preparing their meals or even looking after their own children.

As colonialism developted, the African population found new ways to resist colonial oppression and eventually apply pressure for the total elimination of colonlialism.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:34 PM
Not to mention that fact that Collonialism was fucking barbaric! umm.... how many people did Brittain kill in Mozimbique... Lumumba...
I dont mean to be ignorant but wasnt Mozambique a Portuguese colony?

[zangetsu]

lol, very sorry was memory lapse, its 4:50pm here and havent slept yet, i meant Namibia

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Well, being as its 2005, and not the 18th century, the goals are different this time round i do believe.

Its not like the governments are going to invade, line up the redcoats and massacare the population. not at all. for one the western governments want to combat the AID's crisis, the famines, the plagues and constant wars.

Also its been suggested that a surgical military strike would remove the tyrant operating in Zimbabwe, leaving that country available for a suitable native government, not outside control.

Of course, would you rather have them starve whilst dying of AIDs than inflict this awful terrible oh-so-horrific 'Oppression' upon them ? Opression by definiton means to opress, to keep down, to rule by force. The documents i've read dont exactly suggest making the locals sing rule britania

[zangetsu]

What exactly do you think Colonisation was? IT GAVE THOSE COUNTRIES A PURPOE!? you are advocating slavery!? what evaxtly do you think of black people? they are savages?

Just because popular world opinion one day backs the right side in a situation, does not absolve the fact that Brittain set up the problem in the first place. Hell praciticly the same thing happened in Zimbabwe another former Brittish colony... those 2 countries were never liberated by Brittain, only when their settler populations political instraments were overthrown by internal resistance could you say colonisation ended in those countries.

Africa was not tribal madness, but it wasnt paradise either before the Europeans came... most of the conflict in Africa was caused from the slave trade~ and what about all that WWI shit happening in Europe? what war loving savages are those that must go conquer a continent, fighting each other in Europe wasnt stimulating enough?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Dear fucknut,

throughout history, in the whole world a majority of people has been exploited for the gains of the few. Whetever it was the feudalistic rule of an European lord or the emperial rulers. In essence they are the same: exploiting a majority for the gains of a minority.

You, instead of desposing these exploitive systems, you advocate one above the other. Instead of advocating a real alternative system which will put a stop to this exploiting, you choose side with the more advanced exploiter.

Don't you see, this so called "anarchy", civil wars that you speak about, is the direct result of exploiters fighting each other for the gains that can be made. No matter if they fight over the local grazinggrounds or continents, they are exploiters of us. They need to be stopped to deliver a permanent solution.

- dear regards, your favorite anti-imperialist.

[zangetsu]

Originally posted by Sovietsky [email protected] 9 2005, 02:00 PM
Well, being as its 2005, and not the 18th century, the goals are different this time round i do believe.

Its not like the governments are going to invade, line up the redcoats and massacare the population. not at all. for one the western governments want to combat the AID's crisis, the famines, the plagues and constant wars.

Also its been suggested that a surgical military strike would remove the tyrant operating in Zimbabwe, leaving that country available for a suitable native government, not outside control.

Of course, would you rather have them starve whilst dying of AIDs than inflict this awful terrible oh-so-horrific 'Oppression' upon them ? Opression by definiton means to opress, to keep down, to rule by force. The documents i've read dont exactly suggest making the locals sing rule britania
sorry i have totaly ignored this neo colonialism, what exactly do u propose? aid in many many countries would not be squandered, but they DO NOT recieve much aid NEWAY...

would the world care enough about the people of Zimbabwe do nething about it, lol. Where is the world focus? Where are the U.N resolutions!? oh wait... i forgot, you need to have oil in your country for ne of that kindof attention.

[zangetsu]

It seems you believe that implied rhetoric in the stinginess of the west to contribute towards one of their biggest historical vitcims... I mean, you think they would be able to give a little back to Africa, see'ing as it was the birth place of its free-labour force, which built the foundations to much of its economy.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Non-sectarian bastard!, please dont call me fucknut.

These countries have been either Ill governed or just simply left to their own devices since the various empires fell appart. Yes the current problems are the results of the removal of colonialism is the most part.

Then again, anyone with even the most basic knowledge of history will know that the continent as a whole wasnt a very nice place for hundreds of years. The brief interlude of european powers simply gives the children and trendy-left mob something to point the finger at. So do some research before you try to prove me wrong.

And i notice, only mr non sectarian tried to forumlate another solution - stop the various factions fighting long enough for them to form self government. This is one of the basic ideas of what i read - stop them killing each other so that they can become self sufficient.

and Zangetsu. Dont act like a 12 year old having a tantrum. I was not advocating slavery. The british empire was the first to abolish it actually. and by give them a purpose i meant that they have a common goal - the production of food whatever, its not slavery, its giving people a life.

And get over the OIL thing child, the UN has been giving AID to africa for years, again, read some history.

Tell ya what, this might make you all happy, unite all the little waring states, give them a committe, a nice red flag and say go rule yourselves, you can all starve and die of AIDs in perfect un-opressed equality.

Anyone got any non-politically driven solutions ? Im sure one or two of you must understand some ethics or morality.

(and dont say how unethical imperialism is, if rightly used its perfectly ethically viable)

[zangetsu]

<Slavery was only ever abolished because of the need for consumers of Brittish manufactured goods...

The whole continent is not caught up in tribal or ethnic conflict, and where it is... that is because historicly the European powers did not care to consider the local population groups when drawing their borders... Many ethnic groups and tribes were split up as well as grouped with historical enemies... in some African countries as much as 150 differant languages existed from this arbitrary border making... of course there is going to be governance problems in these countries&#33; the Congo is a prime example.
Can you imagine making Brittain and France one country during one of their historical falling outs&#33;? i think you do hold racial predujices, just like the initial collonialists had... you need to believe the people you are "bringing civilsation too" are inferior and incapable themselves... You cannot blame a people for not producing democracy when France itself took 200 years to do so, and without the severe problems that have been imposed on such a battered land as Africa.>

"< >" denotes my original post, it ends with a huge generalisation, which i would like to correct, as some African countries have overcome the odds and produced peaceful democracies... South Africa being a prime example... which might have recieved outside help in bringing down appartheid - it had no help in its organising and forming its democratic institutions. If anything the world made itself more of a burden in not canceling the Appartheid debt -something that threatens the stability of the country with its sevre crippling of how much the goverment can do to bring relief to the people who still suffer from the remanients of a horrible system NOT UNLIKE collonialism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Just skimmed - a few quick comments.

First, I think it is important to understand that Colonization did not end all of that "Tribal Bullshit" - it created it. The British methods of indirect rule highlighted and generated ethnic and tribal divisions and created tensions where few, if any, existed.
The British, however, are not alone in this - the extreme example is Rawanda where Tutsi and Hutu ethnicities were a product of flawed European understandings, and didn&#39;t exist at all&#33; They out of an insane need by colonial leaders to control and clasify and individuals were labelled one of the two tribes according to really arbitrary factors - prior to colonialism, Hutu and Tutsi were esentially indistinguishable social-classes, and they became distinguishable only according to the ID cards issued by the Belgian gov&#39;t.

Second, to say post-colonial governments have been largely free from interference is . . . idiotic. Their role as gate-keepers is defined by their relationship to the first world, and their participation in global systems of trade. Neo-colonialism is not our friend.
Even if this weren&#39;t the case, the continued direct (Negative) interference of Western powers in Africa is rather welll documented.

Here&#39;s a solution - smashing capitalism abroad to give Africa a chance to develop without getting smacked down in every instance of uppityness.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Yes smash capitalism, fight the power brother.....

Without the capitalist nations, africa would long ago have wiped itself out, AID&#39;s cant be controlled by corrupt dictators who steal money :) or spend it on vain glorious armies and russian fighter jets.

And no child, i dont &#39;hold racial prejudices&#39;, if i did, id simply suggest nuking the continent as a solution wouldnt i ? or maybe because im such a racist, ill suggest the subjegation of the people, instead of the picking them back up.

and no ammount of examples of european ignorance can hide the fact that for the most part africa is in a shit state to be blunt. As i stressed earlier, but which people seem to have ignored, its not the 18th century anymore. people have at bare minium historical understanding of what went on before.

If you drop the politics for one moment people, and look at it economincally and from a utillitarian point of view - those people cant help themselves. dont call me a racist. its fact. third world debt wouldnt exist and the continent would be a wonderful place. but it isnt. so think of it as helping a greater good by implementing a small evil. the people of africa only have everything to gain by accepting outside administration.

healthcare, regular CLEAN water, good food supplies, proper law and order, education above primary school levels, and not the constant fear that some maniac dictator is going to indulge in a spot of ethnic cleansing.

Smashing capitalism in the west would be a wonderful idea, but until a universally acceptable solution is presented, its a very silly idea, because we&#39;d just end up with all the academics and businessmen killed off by ignorants and &#39;revolutionaries&#39;, then the neo-nazis/facists whatever would gain in strength, with no central government to prevent them.

To smash captialism you have to change the entire world. Without a hell of a lot of public support it isnt possible. and most of middle america aint gonna like living in a communist state are they ?

Also, smash capitalism, who&#39;s going to help africa then ? how many communists or whatever do you know that have the skills to manufacture the AID&#39;s drugs ? that have the abilities to command logistics for an entire continent ?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Sovietsky [email protected] 10 2005, 05:14 PM
To smash captialism you have to change the entire world. Without a hell of a lot of public support it isnt possible. and most of middle america aint gonna like living in a communist state are they ?
You are aware that there&#39;s no such thing as a communist state, Communism evokes a classless stateless society. I&#39;ve noticed a few mistakes, you seem to think that the Soviet Union was communist, it wasnt.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1/ How many capitalists know how to manufacture AIDS drugs? I imagine it&#39;s very few&#33; Primarily, this sort of thing is not the realm of demagogues, property-holders, and so forth, but of workers (Yes, that includes scientists).

2/ Western intervension in Africa has an extended history, and it has yet to result in "healthcare, regular CLEAN water, good food supplies, proper law and order, education above primary school levels," etc. This position represents both a cultural bias and absolute lack of historical understanding. If anything, neo-/colonial ventures in Africa have been the greatest barrier to this sort of progress&#33;

3/ What you need to understand is the forces propping up dictators, perpetuating debt, etc. Enough shitty surface analysis&#33;


Take an African History course at the college level, and quit being a fuckwit.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

I am :)

i was just bored with this site whinging about the same things over and over, thought id throw up something fairly original.

now, like i said, please, give me an alternative solution ? other than all that smash capitalism crap, we can all spout that off.

[Vinny Rafarino]

now, like i said, please, give me an alternative solution

Your restriction would be a good start, sonny. ;)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

degenerate back into their former anarchy, tribal wars, despotic presidents, un-ending civil wars.

. . . and you&#39;re actually studying African History?
Fuck, does university mean nothing anymore?
You may have inspired me to quit after this semester . . .

I mean, that&#39;s just fucking innaccurate.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 10 2005, 08:18 PM

degenerate back into their former anarchy, tribal wars, despotic presidents, un-ending civil wars.

. . . and you&#39;re actually studying African History?
Fuck, does university mean nothing anymore?
You may have inspired me to quit after this semester . . .

I mean, that&#39;s just fucking innaccurate.
I think he&#39;s talking about real history, rather than the politically correct version. Such phenomenon are not merely found in Africa but everywhere.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Comrade RAF, you&#39;ve blocked me for presenting an argument for debate ? what a load of shit. its supposed to be a leftisit community, ive been a member of it longer than you, and believe it or not ive contributed more than you to the cause than just sitting whining on here. Restricting me from the rest of the site is just pathetic. You&#39;re just a sad little thing on a power trip. Grow up and un-restrict me. Im not exactly a bloody US senate member &#33;

and well. I said a while ago this site had gone to shit, this just proves it. you cant actually answer my argument so you restrict my account. This is why your precious capitalism rules the world, becasue weakling egomaniancs stamp out any chance to make any kind of progress.

and, finally. what in the hells name is &#39;white man&#39;s burden&#39; supposed to mean ?

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

We as leftists, oppose all forms of imperialism no matter how "well intentioned", the white man&#39;s burden thing is a crack at just that. Do you believe for an instant that more imperialist intervention on the African continent will save them?

If so, then you are no different than the Christians who went around the world trying to "save" the savage peoples from their own devices.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 11 2005, 04:52 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 11 2005, 04:52 PM)
Virgin Molotov [email protected] 10 2005, 08:18 PM

degenerate back into their former anarchy, tribal wars, despotic presidents, un-ending civil wars.

. . . and you&#39;re actually studying African History?
Fuck, does university mean nothing anymore?
You may have inspired me to quit after this semester . . .

I mean, that&#39;s just fucking innaccurate.
I think he&#39;s talking about real history, rather than the politically correct version. Such phenomenon are not merely found in Africa but everywhere. [/b]
PC-Bashing is lovely, but have you undertaken any serious studies of African History? I&#39;m not trying to deny that indeed, some of those things did exist, but the myth of savage Africa - of utter-chaos prior to colonization - is just that - a myth, and an all-too-common one.
If you&#39;d like to present some evidence that it is anything more than a traditional, racist, justification for colonization, please, lay on the examples - but to suggest an entire rather large, and rather varied, continent was some sort of non-stop backward bloodbath is irresponsible, and fucking stupid.
C&#39;mon. Prove me wrong. Do it, and I&#39;ll write my MP and tell them we should invade the DRC.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

I presented an arguement for debate, and since no-one would debate appart from reel off the usual crap, i got restricted.

Now, MR virign molotov cocktail seems to have something in between his eyes, this is what we call a good thing.

I wasnt actually suggesting that they carry it out, i was merely playing devil&#39;s advocate, you do understand that dont you ? It means i was merely using the idea to see if i could provoke some kind of discussion, instead of the usual &#39;lets all destroy capitalism how evil is america/microsoft/etc etc etc&#39;, and as yet, no-one has been able to come up with anything, appart from call me a racist, which is really quite innaccuarte, as neither me nor my ideas are racist. You should learn to read instead of reeling off stock lines about how everything is sooooo evil.

Now any of you, restore my faith in what i&#39;ve been doing for 4 years and come up with an idea ? just the one ? or are you just a bunch of stoner NOFX kiddies who copy and paste from google ?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Sovietsky Souyuz+--> (Sovietsky Souyuz)I wasnt actually suggesting that they carry it out, I was merely playing devil&#39;s advocate, you do understand that, don&#39;t you?[/b]

Yes, we understand it very well. It is a standard excuse that we hear every time someone makes a racist, sexist, imperialist, etc. post on this board and is dismayed to learn that such posts have consequences...such as getting restricted to Opposing Ideologies.

Comrade RAF didn&#39;t restrict you; it was done by vote of the Commie Club...90% of the votes were in favor of restricting you.

That you are now in your "proper place" is shown by the agreement of Professor Moneybags with your views...


Professor Moneybags
I think he&#39;s talking about real history, rather than the politically correct version. Such phenomenon are not merely found in Africa but everywhere.

Although Moneybags is not aware of the correct use of plural Greek nouns -- phenomenon is singular, the plural is phenomena -- he is quite willing to set aside his "moral opposition to force" in order to justify imperialism.

"Playing devil&#39;s advocate" lands you in the camp of..."the devil".

Surprised? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

See redstar dear child, put your rattle down and listen a second, devils advocate means they actually arent my views, I know in your tiny egocentric brain you can comprehend this, because even the thickest human being can grasp basic logic.

If they were my views, why havent I posted anything like this before ? Why arent I in full support of all your other restricted members ?

Basically, 90% of the &#39;commie club&#39; are elitist hypocrites. Any one of you that subscribes to any kind of leftist ideology and then &#39;restricts&#39; someone on the message board obviously are either on a silly power trip or dont grasp the fundementals of what it all means.

This is why this site will achieve nothing. Maybe a couple of quid for various charities etc, but what does restricting someone who put something real on the board, instead of whining about how awful the world is, achieve anything ?

Simple answer - give child power over another, child looses the basic ideas of what its supposed to believe in. And yes, i know its a message board, but if you cant manage do that right, then how can you expect to achieve anything in the real world.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

a) Within the context of this constructed situation, which we consent to participate in, knowing the rules, restriction makes sense. In a leftist soccer game, you&#39;re still not allowed to use yr hands, or put fifty people on the feild. It is when these rules are imposed without consent that they are dangerous and illegitimate. As it stands, nobody is forcing you to play soccer.

b) We need to make a sticky on playing Devil&#39;s Advocate: That is, announce BEFOREHAND, and put the post in the opposing ideologies forum.

c) redstar2000 - Agreence from Money Bags doesn&#39;t make something necessarily bad. It&#39;s quite posible, likely even, that Money Bags shares my fondness for potatos roasted with garlic . . . it doesn&#39;t make potatoes roasted with garlic counter-revolutionary&#33; Tear up the argument, not the idiot. You&#39;ve actually driven somebody about a third of yr age to nag you. :lol:

d) Sovietsky Souyuz - Slagging off redstar2000 and the CC doesn&#39;t help yr case - at all. I imagine that if you wrote a short piece explaining yr actual views, going in to some detail as to the continuing repurcussions of colonialism in Africa (Who is propping up them Dictators? Supplying that "tribal warfare"*?), and the interconnection between racism and imperial ventures on the continent, then it is concievable that someone might start a thread urging that you be unbanned.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Thankyou VMC, much appriciated, and i think your point - b) is a very good idea

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Sovietsky Souyuz
Basically, 90% of the &#39;commie club&#39; are elitist hypocrites. Any one of you that subscribes to any kind of leftist ideology and then &#39;restricts&#39; someone on the message board obviously are either on a silly power trip or don&#39;t grasp the fundamentals of what it all means.

I&#39;m afraid that it&#39;s you that fails to grasp the "fundamentals" of "any kind of leftist ideology".

You apparently think that it has something to do with "tolerance" for racism and imperialism.

It doesn&#39;t.


This is why this site will achieve nothing...what does restricting someone who put something real on the board, instead of whining about how awful the world is, achieve anything?

You can&#39;t have it both ways, you know. You can&#39;t claim to be "playing devil&#39;s advocate" and then turn around and boast of posting "something real on the board".

Frankly, as I noted earlier, I don&#39;t think you were "playing devil&#39;s advocate" at all. That was just the "standard excuse". I think you meant every word of what you said -- you considered it "real" and "not just whining".

As to what we have "achieved"...we have the largest left message board (by a wide margin) in the English-speaking world.

We didn&#39;t get there by "tolerating" racism and imperialism.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Dont be obtuse child. By real i meant a real issue. You&#39;re just trying to be awkward now, as not to loose face. If i believed in Imperialism, why wasnt i restriced upon joining two years ago ?

Why wasnt i banned years ago ? for all my apparent racism and imperialism ?

Just accept you might have been wrong, it wont hurt you ya know.

[Professor Moneybags]

How did you manage to interpret :


I think he&#39;s talking about real history, rather than the politically correct version. Such phenomenon are not merely found in Africa but everywhere.

...as a justification of imperialism ?

Historical context dropping as usual. Yes, many of those who invaded Africa were indeed thugs. Question : Were the "natives" any better ? Answer : Not really.

I&#39;m not interested in taking sides in a thug 1 vs thug 2 match, are you ?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I am - no matter how bad you may percieve "Thug 2" to be, it&#39;s hardly justification for "Thug 1" to kick the living shit out of them, subject them to neo-/colonialism, slavery, systematic violence, etc. for "Thug 1"&#39;s selfish economic benefit, and ensure continued "thuggery" that persists to this day.

I am strongly opposed to the actions of the American gov&#39;t, but I have no doubt you&#39;d cry foul if I were forcing you to meet rubber-quotas or face excecution&#33;&#33;&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Sovietsky Souyuz+--> (Sovietsky Souyuz)If i believed in Imperialism, why wasnt i restriced upon joining two years ago?[/b]

Beats me&#33;

Possible Explanations

1. You simply didn&#39;t express your real opinions openly.

2. You&#39;ve changed your opinions over the last two years and are now advocating shit that you wouldn&#39;t have done earlier.

3. People then were not as "sharp" politically and more "tolerant" of reactionary bullshit than they are now.

4. Some combination of the above.


Professor Moneybags
Yes, many of those who invaded Africa were indeed thugs. Question : Were the "natives" any better ? Answer : Not really.

Have I misinterpreted you? I can&#39;t recall any post that you&#39;ve made on this board expressing even indirect opposition to, for example, U.S. imperialism in Iraq.

Do you regard the invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S. imperialism and its lackeys as "a quarrel between thugs"?

Are you "neutral" on and "uninterested" in this question?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[PRC-UTE]

Historical context dropping as usual. Yes, many of those who invaded Africa were indeed thugs. Question : Were the "natives" any better ? Answer : Not really.

I&#39;m not interested in taking sides in a thug 1 vs thug 2 match, are you ?

You mindless reactionary, you can&#39;t compare tribal warfare (which by definition involves no more than mere tribes) with British atrocities in Africa which include concentration camps. Idiot&#33;

Sovietsky Souyuz,

You&#39;re absolutley correct -- let the English civilise the planet. They&#39;ve done such an excellent job in the six counties of Ireland&#33; :lol:

BRITS OUT&#33; SASSANAIGH AMACH&#33;

[Loknar]

I believe the problem is that these nations are artificial for the most part (created by another national power rather than evolved naturally to form its own borders). Let these nations break up, look at the DMR. of the Congo, that nation is made of too many nationalities to ever work with a strong national government.

[Professor Moneybags]

Have I misinterpreted you? I can&#39;t recall any post that you&#39;ve made on this board expressing even indirect opposition to, for example, U.S. imperialism in Iraq.

It isn&#39;t imperialism. Just like the invasion of nazi Germany by the allies wasn&#39;t "imperialism".


Do you regard the invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S. imperialism and its lackeys as "a quarrel between thugs"?

Dictatorships have no right to exist. Iraq was run by a dictatorship, the US is not (I know it&#39;s tempting to think so, but it isn&#39;t. Speaking out against the government will not get you thrown in a plastic-shredding machine.)

[Professor Moneybags]

You mindless reactionary,

You mindless slogan-chanter.


you can&#39;t compare tribal warfare (which by definition involves no more than mere tribes) with British atrocities in Africa which include concentration camps. Idiot&#33;

Yes you can. How are they different, in principle ?


You&#39;re absolutley correct -- let the English civilise the planet. They&#39;ve done such an excellent job in the six counties of Ireland&#33; :lol:

BRITS OUT&#33; SASSANAIGH AMACH&#33;

Ah, the IRA. Still worshipping neo-nazis (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=JM2P5EGRNRHWBQFIQMFCM5WAVCBQY JVC?xml=/opinion/2005/01/16/do1606.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/) like Sean Russell, are they ?

[PRC-UTE]

Ah, the IRA. Still worshipping neo-nazis like Sean Russell, are they ?

You silly wanker, I don&#39;t support the IRA.

That&#39;s a dodge anyway. The point is the wonderful, civilising Brits introduced balkan-like pogroms to a once peaceful country.


Yes you can. How are they different, in principle ?

How is tribal warfare different from imperialism? :lol:

Tribal warfare : (usually) ritualised wars between tribes

Imperialism : one nation conquering another

Imperialism is responsible for the worst crimes in history. Tribal warfare is a game by comparison.

[PRC-UTE]

Ah, the IRA. Still worshipping neo-nazis like Sean Russell, are they ?

Also, you might want to get your terminology correct. Russell never was a &#39;neo-nazi.&#39; He sought an alliance with the Nazis, he never was one himself.

[Ortega]

Post deleted - Spam.

[Professor Moneybags]

How is tribal warfare different from imperialism? :lol:

Tribal warfare : (usually) ritualised wars between tribes

Imperialism : one nation conquering another

You demonstrate your inablility to think in principles. The difference between imperialism and tribalism is only one of scale- they&#39;re not different at all.


Imperialism is responsible for the worst crimes in history. Tribal warfare is a game by comparison.

See above.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:29 PM
Russell never was a &#39;neo-nazi.&#39; He sought an alliance with the Nazis, he never was one himself.
Big. Bloody. Deal. <_<

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 21 2005, 02:04 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 21 2005, 02:04 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 05:29 PM
Russell never was a &#39;neo-nazi.&#39; He sought an alliance with the Nazis, he never was one himself.
Big. Bloody. Deal. <_< [/b]
It is a big deal. Hundreds of Irish Republicans fought against fascists in Spain, many giving their lives. To single out a single man, who talked to the Nazis without the knowledge of the rest of the IRA or the rest of the RM, to condemn us today is bollix and ahistorical.