Another Intepretation of History

[Joby]

Many Marxists, here and elsewehere, believe that the "History of the Class Struggle" can explain away most trends that have existed throughout histpry. War is explained away as a capitalist fetish, famine as a tool of the elite's.

However, this view fails to show how certain groups, over time, became succesfull over others. Why did nations almost completely void of any scarce natural reascouces, such as Japan, develop and succeed while nations with much more potential fail? The answer lies with the ability of certain groups to unite around the "nation," as opposed to the ancient tribal instincts they may have.

Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have all been unable to provide a division of wealth that would allow strong development because of the racial and ethnic divisions which exist beneath the shroud of the nation, and always have the potential to simmer to the surface.

The only ways out of this predicament is through capitalism. Only by allowing every member of every group the opportunity to make money, ie have a stake in the establishment, will the divisions cease to hold any weight. For example, my neighborhood at least 6 or 7 ethnicities, and nobody cares. However, in areas were the tribal tendencies come out, such as the other side of my city, or Oakland, or muchh of LA, Capitalism has been less succesful in overcoming the economic disparity and ushering in more political and social freedoms.

Likewise, Africa hasn't benefited from the Capitalist system most of the world has adapted to because they're still have in environment that results in brutal dictators controlling machete-wielding mobs. The same is true in those Middle Eastern nations which have strong sectarian divisions (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc) while nations that have overcome this (ableit with a lesser brutal regime) have seen capitalism, and their society in general, thrive. Latin America has finally been able to achieve political freedom in some degree, when the vast majority finally stood up for them. Hopefully, surging Capitalistic gains are right around the corner for those nations.

As TomK has argued, capitalist "carrots" played a role in getting all major parties in the Northern Ireland conflict to end the conflict -- Likely because of the failure of their economy as compared to the one to the south. On the same note, the only way that the Palestinian issue can be solved is by guaranteeing the Palestinians living in the occupied territories a real stake in the system. When unemployment and poverty reach the levels they do there, anybody can fund a "Resistance movement." Now, at the same time, it might just be easier to deal with controlling them.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wait. Dejavu was telling us history is built on antagonisms between markets and the state. Now we're getting nations involved?


War is explained away as a capitalist fetishNo, war eliminates competition and brings in profits. I doubt many capitalists get up in the morning and think to themselves, "I love blood."


famine as a tool of the elite's. The potato famine is one such example. However, not all famines are a tool of the elite. Prior to improving agricultural efficiency in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, many famines in Europe and North America were caused by natural conditions.

I think you're trying to simplify our simplification. :D


Why did nations almost completely void of any scarce natural reascouces, such as Japan, develop and succeed while nations with much more potential fail?Japan's initial industrialization process occurred on the back of trade and imperialism, much like North America and Europe. I don't see how your topic of contention makes any sense. It's undeniable that Japan progressed at a rapid pace when the bourgeoisie came to power. Other regions like the Middle East developed at a slower pace due to geography, climatology, and internal policy.


Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have all been unable to provide a division of wealth that would allow strong development because of the racial and ethnic divisions which exist beneath the shroud of the nation, and always have the potential to simmer to the surface.African "racial" patterns are no more diverse than they were in Europe prior to high feudalism. Indeed one could interpret the reasons why Africans didn't develop equitable weapon technology by the time Europeans started poking their noses around without touching ethnicity. Geography played an important role. After the collapse of the Roman Empire Sub-Saharan Africa lost touch with Eurasia, whereas India, the Middle East, China, and Europe still acquired knowledge through trade. You're a smart man. I'm sure you've heard about how the Moslims studied Greek philosophy and then developed their own mathematical and scientific theories. The Crusades then brought this new knowledge back to Europe.

The regions with the most naturally sustainable climates are Africa, Australia, and North America. People living in such places didn't have to face the cold bareness of Europe, or the whimsical weather patterns of East Asia, or the drought-infested deserts of the Middle East. Agricultural improvements came late because there was not as much need. (You'll like the demand-oriented reference, I'm sure). Consequently, class divisions weren't as noticeable. Did you ever stop and question why grand empires dominated South and Central America, but not the North?

The only ways out of this predicament is through capitalism.Marx points out that capitalism is a necessary stage in material develop. If you think we're opposed to replacing feudalism with profit-seeking, you're sadly mistaken. We oppose capitalist imperialism - which has hindered progress in Latin America and Africa. There capitalists get their resources and flea. Asia is heavily invested in due to the need (pesky need) for new methods of achieving wealth after the stagnation period in the 70s.

Surely you agree with me that neo-liberalism is a sham?


Likewise, Africa hasn't benefited from the Capitalist system most of the world has adapted to because they're still have in environment that results in brutal dictators controlling machete-wielding mobs.
Uh, a lot of African and Middle Eastern dictators were backed by the United States and Europe in exchange for financial and political assistance.


For example, my neighborhood at least 6 or 7 ethnicities, and nobody cares. However, in areas were the tribal tendencies come out, such as the other side of my city, or Oakland, or muchh of LA, Capitalism has been less succesful in overcoming the economic disparity and ushering in more political and social freedoms.

I don't know if I'm being overly-suspicious, but I'm taking remarks such of these as jabs. I just want to point out that Marx predicted that capitalism would undermine its own base support by eliminating racial, gender, and religious differences between people until the working class became unified without influence from primal fears of each other.

[JazzRemington]

Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have all been unable to provide a division of wealth that would allow strong development because of the racial and ethnic divisions which exist beneath the shroud of the nation, and always have the potential to simmer to the surface.

Nonsense. Ethnicity, in and of itself, is not the cause of this. More often than not it is a tool used by groups or individuals. In fact, many of these ethnicities got along rather well up until colonialism, which created arbitrary and unnatural borders in many of the countries they took over. Africa is good example of this.

Another example will show how ethnicity is not the cause of at least Africa's problems. I don't know about the Middle East or Latin America, but I doubt it's any different.

Prior to European colonialism, the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda had a social system similar to European feudalism with the Tutsi being the owners of the land and the Hutu working the land and providing some degree of tributes to the Tutsi. They got along more or less harmoniously with little conflict. The Germans, and later the Belgians, would provide support (education, money, etc.) for the Tutsi at the expense of the Hutu, this creating a sharp divide that was not there before. In fact, the Belgians even issued ID cards to the two tribes in order to separate them more easily.

After independence, and a democratic election, the Hutu came in power and many Tutsi fled the country. Years later, the exiled Tutsi organized a rebel group that invaded Rwanda and attempted to restore themselves to power. A peace accord was attempted by teh two groups but it basically failed. This eventually lead to the Rwandan genocide, as the Hutu were attempting to rid Rwanda of the Tutsi so as to secure their own position as the leaders, if you will. None of this was based on ethnicity, but rather it was framed as being ethnically. The Hutu journal Kangura was instrumental in doing this, as it published articles critical of the Tutsi rebel faction and the Tutsis in general, framing their hatred within the confines of ethnicity.

[Joby]

Wait. Dejavu was telling us history is built on antagonisms between markets and the state. Now we're getting nations involved?

Nations provide the legal framework for the marketplace. The state is in existence to settle disputes in a fair and agreed upon manner (ie not with militia).


No, war eliminates competition and brings in profits. I doubt many capitalists get up in the morning and think to themselves, "I love blood."

Dick Cheney does.


Japan's initial industrialization process occurred on the back of trade and imperialism, much like North America and Europe. I don't see how your topic of contention makes any sense. It's undeniable that Japan progressed at a rapid pace when the bourgeoisie came to power. Other regions like the Middle East developed at a slower pace due to geography, climatology, and internal policy.

That's my point.

The middle east has more reasources than Japan, a much more strategic location, and yet would be no more advanced without more progressive people's than during the time they were ruled by Rome.


African "racial" patterns are no more diverse than they were in Europe prior to high feudalism.

Then stop blaming African babies starving on Capitalism!


Indeed one could interpret the reasons why Africans didn't develop equitable weapon technology by the time Europeans started poking their noses around without touching ethnicity. Geography played an important role.

How?

Africa has no disadvantage when compared to cold, dreary, and much less agriculture friendly Europe.


After the collapse of the Roman Empire Sub-Saharan Africa lost touch with Eurasia, whereas India, the Middle East, China, and Europe still acquired knowledge through trade.

And lack of a strongman to impose trade most likely led to this.


You're a smart man. I'm sure you've heard about how the Moslims studied Greek philosophy and then developed their own mathematical and scientific theories. The Crusades then brought this new knowledge back to Europe.

All right. I'll concede that Europe progressed when the Middle East did not. The Middle East hasn't really done much for the human race in quite a while, though.

They're too busy praying to their God for stregnth in fighting people who don't share theirs.



The regions with the most naturally sustainable climates are Africa, Australia, and North America.

Agreed.


People living in such places didn't have to face the cold bareness of Europe, or the whimsical weather patterns of East Asia, or the drought-infested deserts of the Middle East. Agricultural improvements came late because there was not as much need. (You'll like the demand-oriented reference, I'm sure).

Sure.


Consequently, class divisions weren't as noticeable. Did you ever stop and question why grand empires dominated South and Central America, but not the North?

There were thousands of Natives all over the hemisphere.



Marx points out that capitalism is a necessary stage in material develop


Marx didn't need to point that out.


If you think we're opposed to replacing feudalism with profit-seeking, you're sadly mistaken.

Whose we?


We oppose capitalist imperialism - which has hindered progress in Latin America and Africa.

Then how else do you propose they develop capital?

By forcing people to build whatever is needed?


There capitalists get their resources and flea.

While providing thousands of jobs and building an infrastructure that hadn't existed.


Asia is heavily invested in due to the need (pesky need) for new methods of achieving wealth after the stagnation period in the 70s

What do you mean by that?


Surely you agree with me that neo-liberalism is a sham?

As opposed to what? The USSR?



Uh, a lot of African and Middle Eastern dictators were backed by the United States and Europe in exchange for financial and political assistance.


The fact that the West is able to control these people like Serfs is only a testament to how completely they've failed to build anything substantial.


I don't know if I'm being overly-suspicious, but I'm taking remarks such of these as jabs. I just want to point out that Marx predicted that capitalism would undermine its own base support by eliminating racial, gender, and religious differences between people until the working class became unified without influence from primal fears of each other.

How?

All I'm saying is that Capitalism has given us the most freedom any humans have had...ever. The fact that we're free from these tribes is wonderful.

[Joby]

Nonsense. Ethnicity, in and of itself, is not the cause of this.

economic disparity between ethnicities is



which created arbitrary and unnatural borders in many of the countries they took over. Africa is good example of this.


"God forbid we have to live with those people."


Prior to European colonialism, the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda had a social system similar to European feudalism with the Tutsi being the owners of the land and the Hutu working the land and providing some degree of tributes to the Tutsi. They got along more or less harmoniously with little conflict. The Germans, and later the Belgians, would provide support (education, money, etc.) for the Tutsi at the expense of the Hutu, this creating a sharp divide that was not there before. In fact, the Belgians even issued ID cards to the two tribes in order to separate them more easily.

After independence, and a democratic election, the Hutu came in power and many Tutsi fled the country. Years later, the exiled Tutsi organized a rebel group that invaded Rwanda and attempted to restore themselves to power. A peace accord was attempted by teh two groups but it basically failed. This eventually lead to the Rwandan genocide, as the Hutu were attempting to rid Rwanda of the Tutsi so as to secure their own position as the leaders, if you will. None of this was based on ethnicity, but rather it was framed as being ethnically. The Hutu journal Kangura was instrumental in doing this, as it published articles critical of the Tutsi rebel faction and the Tutsis in general, framing their hatred within the confines of ethnicity.

Yes, the failure of these people, the vast majority of whom haven't even seen a Belgian, to get past these tribal tendencies is Europe's fault.

All thsi shows is that the European's were better at controlling the feudal populations, not that the same system of oppression didn't occur before. Unfortunately, Europe was forced to leave due to it's own wars, and was unable to finish the job of creating nations out of these countries. When the strong arm left, a power vaccum emerged in which all the tribal and ethnic bitterness manifested itself.

The same is true in the ME, most of Africa, and, in a very different way, Latin America. It's these divisions which kept an investor-friendly environment from emerging and causing many of these places to fall back into "low-fuedalism."

[JazzRemington]

economic disparity between ethnicities is



"God forbid we have to live with those people."

People have lived next to each other for thousands of years in Africa with relatively few conflicts. The Europeans came in and effectively set up borders that were not natural and were arbitrary. I.e., borders that did not exist at that time. How hard is that to understand?


Yes, the failure of these people, the vast majority of whom haven't even seen a Belgian, to get past these tribal tendencies is Europe's fault. I'm not going to dignify this with a response. It only shows how utterly immature your understanding of the situation is.


All thsi shows is that the European's were better at controlling the feudal populations, not that the same system of oppression didn't occur before. Unfortunately, Europe was forced to leave due to it's own wars, and was unable to finish the job of creating nations out of these countries. When the strong arm left, a power vaccum emerged in which all the tribal and ethnic bitterness manifested itself.OK. It seems I have to take this slow because you are incapable of understanding history, or anything for that matter. Prior to the Europeans coming, Africa had a series of very complex and intricate societies that had a high degree of cohesion. The Rwandans got along relatively harmoniously and whatever divisions existed between the Hutu and the Tutsi were based upon their economic positions. This was natural and they seemed to have viewed one another as either herders or croppers.

The Europeans came along and created a system that was not natural to the people of Rwanda. They separated them based on their ethnicity, which was arbitrary and not how they were originally divided. They were originally divided by their particular method of providing a living, for lack of a better term. It was not based upon their ethnicity but upon whether they were herders or croppers. Not whether they were Hutu or Tutsi. If the Europeans were trying to create nations in Africa, they were doing so arbitrarily and based upon divisions that didn't exist. Why is this so hard to understand? The Germans and later the Belgians divided the Hutu and Tutsi based on a concept that wasn't natural to them and began a system of preferential treatment toward the Tutsi that excluded the Hutu. Once again, the Europeans imposed a European-style social organization upon a people that weren't organized like the Europeans were at that time.


The same is true in the ME, most of Africa, and, in a very different way, Latin America. It's these divisions which kept an investor-friendly environment from emerging and causing many of these places to fall back into "low-fuedalism."Once again, I don't know about the Middle East or Latin America, so I cannot comment. But I severely doubt it's that simple. The problems of the third world are more complicated than you could ever imagine if you think it's that simple, and saying that it's all because of one thing only shows your severe ignorance of the history of these regions. In fact, I doubt you know anything at all about these regions other than what you know from Fox News or some other nonsensical news station. Read a fucking book, you idiot.

[Dean]

Many Marxists, here and elsewehere, believe that the "History of the Class Struggle" can explain away most trends that have existed throughout histpry. War is explained away as a capitalist fetish, famine as a tool of the elite's.

However, this view fails to show how certain groups, over time, became succesfull over others. Why did nations almost completely void of any scarce natural reascouces, such as Japan, develop and succeed while nations with much more potential fail? The answer lies with the ability of certain groups to unite around the "nation," as opposed to the ancient tribal instincts they may have.

Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have all been unable to provide a division of wealth that would allow strong development because of the racial and ethnic divisions which exist beneath the shroud of the nation, and always have the potential to simmer to the surface.

The only ways out of this predicament is through capitalism. Only by allowing every member of every group the opportunity to make money, ie have a stake in the establishment, will the divisions cease to hold any weight. For example, my neighborhood at least 6 or 7 ethnicities, and nobody cares. However, in areas were the tribal tendencies come out, such as the other side of my city, or Oakland, or muchh of LA, Capitalism has been less succesful in overcoming the economic disparity and ushering in more political and social freedoms.
Tribal tendancies in Oakland? Sounds like racism to me.


Likewise, Africa hasn't benefited from the Capitalist system most of the world has adapted to because they're still have in environment that results in brutal dictators controlling machete-wielding mobs. The same is true in those Middle Eastern nations which have strong sectarian divisions (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc) while nations that have overcome this (ableit with a lesser brutal regime) have seen capitalism, and their society in general, thrive. Latin America has finally been able to achieve political freedom in some degree, when the vast majority finally stood up for them. Hopefully, surging Capitalistic gains are right around the corner for those nations.
You don't know anything about the history of those nations. Capitalism caused the major strife that is perpetuated today; capitalist arms sales help perpetuate these problems.


As TomK has argued, capitalist "carrots" played a role in getting all major parties in the Northern Ireland conflict to end the conflict -- Likely because of the failure of their economy as compared to the one to the south. On the same note, the only way that the Palestinian issue can be solved is by guaranteeing the Palestinians living in the occupied territories a real stake in the system. When unemployment and poverty reach the levels they do there, anybody can fund a "Resistance movement." Now, at the same time, it might just be easier to deal with controlling them.
So capitalism takes the compulsion to fight for freedom away? Sounds lovely. Also, you don't know shit about Palestine - it was the very capitalist organization that the Zionists brought over that started the conflict.

[RNK]

Lol

"The only way out of the problems created by capitalism is... more capitalism!"

Yeah, ok buddy, good luck there.

[Joby]

People have lived next to each other for thousands of years in Africa with relatively few conflicts. The Europeans came in and effectively set up borders that were not natural and were arbitrary. I.e., borders that did not exist at that time. How hard is that to understand?

So fucking what?

Would you machete Canadiens if you were fforced into a country with them?


I'm not going to dignify this with a response. It only shows how utterly immature your understanding of the situation is.

Well, then fuck off.



OK. It seems I have to take this slow because you are incapable of understanding history, or anything for that matter. Prior to the Europeans coming, Africa had a series of very complex and intricate societies that had a high degree of cohesion. The Rwandans got along relatively harmoniously and whatever divisions existed between the Hutu and the Tutsi were based upon their economic positions. This was natural and they seemed to have viewed one another as either herders or croppers.

The Europeans came along and created a system that was not natural to the people of Rwanda. They separated them based on their ethnicity, which was arbitrary and not how they were originally divided. They were originally divided by their particular method of providing a living, for lack of a better term. It was not based upon their ethnicity but upon whether they were herders or croppers. Not whether they were Hutu or Tutsi. If the Europeans were trying to create nations in Africa, they were doing so arbitrarily and based upon divisions that didn't exist. Why is this so hard to understand? The Germans and later the Belgians divided the Hutu and Tutsi based on a concept that wasn't natural to them and began a system of preferential treatment toward the Tutsi that excluded the Hutu. Once again, the Europeans imposed a European-style social organization upon a people that weren't organized like the Europeans were at that time.


If the divisions the Euro's created were "NOT" based on Hutu/Tutsi, how come the genocides/civil strife is between these groups? The divisions the Belgians created are clearly major dividers in Rwandan society, and are probably more divisive than say Black/White here in America. The fact that Rwandans are unable to get past these differences is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that European Imperialism was nice, or good, or done from the heart.

But the Europeans left in what, 1950? That whole time Rwandans have clearly been unable to realize that every member of their society is, indeed, a human and the fact that being a Rwandan is more important than being a Hutu/Tutsi. Now, they may have had a time of peace, but there's no guarantee these antagonisms will not resurface, guaranteeing we will not help them via investment.


Once again, I don't know about the Middle East or Latin America, so I cannot comment. But I severely doubt it's that simple. The problems of the third world are more complicated than you could ever imagine if you think it's that simple, and saying that it's all because of one thing only shows your severe ignorance of the history of these regions. In fact, I doubt you know anything at all about these regions other than what you know from Fox News or some other nonsensical news station. Read a fucking book, you idiot.

Bahir al-Assad is an Alawite. He controls Syria, a mostly Sunni Muslim country (who have a history of antagonism with the Alwaite "peasants") by very strong oppression and an almost exclusive Alawite high command. For example, Hafez al-Assad, who was the most succesful non-Euro at ruling that nation since the Ottomans, slaughtered tens of thousands of Sunni's at Hama. Because of the conditions within Syria, it's a horrible place to invest (though liberalization must come eventually).

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, who controlled the majority Shia nation of Iraq through very strong oppression with an almost exclusive Tikirit-Based Sunni High command. He did this by murdering thousands of Shiite's in numerous places (and thousands of Kurds, of course). He was the most succesfull non-Euro at ruling this country in hundreds of years. Now, as soon as the strongman fell, what happened? The ethnic divisions came out and wha-bam! Iraq is a shithole. The biggest strategic mistake the US in its invasion was not completely and unquestionigly crushing any and all resistance.

Lebanon has 17 different major factions. They had a 15-year civil war, were invaded by a few of their neighbors, but I guess they've decided that Peace is better. And I don't blame them.

Unlike their neighbors, Lebanon is probably to pluralistic to have an authoritarian control these divisions like Israel or Syria can. Outside of Egypt, every nation in the region is made up of many different tribes/ethnicities and in every one it's understood what happens when you challenge the leader.

But you're right. It's all our fault :rolleyes:

[Joby]

Tribal tendancies in Oakland? Sounds like racism to me.

Exactly how many inter-racial gangs/hairdressers/nail salons/Churches exist in East Oakland?


You don't know anything about the history of those nations. Capitalism caused the major strife that is perpetuated today; capitalist arms sales help perpetuate these problems.

Oh God.

How did every group from Romans to the Ottomans control the region?

By crushing any and all resistance by another tribe completely and absolutely. The Romans slaughtered thousands of Jews when they rose up; Likewise, Saddam did the same to the Kurds.


So capitalism takes the compulsion to fight for freedom away? Sounds lovely. Also, you don't know shit about Palestine - it was the very capitalist organization that the Zionists brought over that started the conflict.

No, it's just another tribal conflict that has existed in the region for thousands of years.

If the Zionists weren't Jews, and thereby held by, say, Syria's standard in the world, they would have done a Hama-style massacre and sloved this via the sword already.

[JazzRemington]

So fucking what?

Would you machete Canadiens if you were fforced into a country with them?

Ah, here we see the essence of what I've said! :laugh:


If the divisions the Euro's created were "NOT" based on Hutu/Tutsi, how come the genocides/civil strife is between these groups? The divisions the Belgians created are clearly major dividers in Rwandan society, and are probably more divisive than say Black/White here in America. The fact that Rwandans are unable to get past these differences is ridiculous.I want you to read what I said again, very carefully.


But the Europeans left in what, 1950? That whole time Rwandans have clearly been unable to realize that every member of their society is, indeed, a human and the fact that being a Rwandan is more important than being a Hutu/Tutsi. Now, they may have had a time of peace, but there's no guarantee these antagonisms will not resurface, guaranteeing we will not help them via investment.Yes, free from colonial rule for some 40 years (an abrupt freedom, I might add) is enough to erase some 200+ years of discrimination. But yes, one day they'll just come to their senses! :lol: That's so enlightening coming from a wealthy country that is nothing like Rwanda.




Bahir al-Assad is an Alawite. He controls Syria, a mostly Sunni Muslim country (who have a history of antagonism with the Alwaite "peasants") by very strong oppression and an almost exclusive Alawite high command. For example, Hafez al-Assad, who was the most succesful non-Euro at ruling that nation since the Ottomans, slaughtered tens of thousands of Sunni's at Hama. Because of the conditions within Syria, it's a horrible place to invest (though liberalization must come eventually).

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, who controlled the majority Shia nation of Iraq through very strong oppression with an almost exclusive Tikirit-Based Sunni High command. He did this by murdering thousands of Shiite's in numerous places (and thousands of Kurds, of course). He was the most succesfull non-Euro at ruling this country in hundreds of years. Now, as soon as the strongman fell, what happened? The ethnic divisions came out and wha-bam! Iraq is a shithole. The biggest strategic mistake the US in its invasion was not completely and unquestionigly crushing any and all resistance.

Lebanon has 17 different major factions. They had a 15-year civil war, were invaded by a few of their neighbors, but I guess they've decided that Peace is better. And I don't blame them.

Unlike their neighbors, Lebanon is probably to pluralistic to have an authoritarian control these divisions like Israel or Syria can. Outside of Egypt, every nation in the region is made up of many different tribes/ethnicities and in every one it's understood what happens when you challenge the leader.As I've said before, I doubt it's that simple and since I don't have the time to research Middle Eastern history, I cannot comment. But I have to point this out because I think you'll take this the wrong way: me refusing to talk about something I don' t know about doesn't mean you're right.

But yes. Of course! Because this (from what you say anyway) happened in Iraq, this is the reason for the Rwandan genocide. Because the two have so much in common with one another and had the same history and development. Thank god we've finally found the one reason for every last problem in the world, that one thing that causes all the problems in the world. You should write a book about this, you'll be famous!

And in case you don't get it, it's called sarcasm!


But you're right. It's all our fault :rolleyes:[/quote]

Listen shit for brains because I am getting tired of repeating myself. The genocide in Rwanda is far more complicated than you could ever imagine, since you refuse to move beyond the utterly immature idea that it's all just old ethnic hatreds coming up. As I've said before (and as I doubt you will), read a goddamn book on the subject and you'll see.

[Zurdito]

But the Europeans left in what, 1950? That whole time Rwandans have clearly been unable to realize that every member of their society is, indeed, a human and the fact that being a Rwandan is more important than being a Hutu/Tutsi. Now, they may have had a time of peace, but there's no guarantee these antagonisms will not resurface, guaranteeing we will not help them via investment.

the europeans never left, africa is still made up of semi-colonies dominated by imperialist capital.

this is why much of africa is impoverished.

poverty leads to violence, as obviously the less there is to go round, the more you need to compete for it, so the more violent you need to be. if me and you were in a room and there was only food for one of us to survive we'd be pretty violent too.

therefore imperialism pits different communities in semi-colonies against each other, utilising inter-ethnic rivalries as people compete for scarce wealth along community lines.

[Joby]

Yes, free from colonial rule for some 40 years (an abrupt freedom, I might add) is enough to erase some 200+ years of discrimination. But yes, one day they'll just come to their senses! :lol: That's so enlightening coming from a wealthy country that is nothing like Rwanda.

It doesn't matter how they came to their current state of two groups hating each other.

Until they do get some enlightenment, history for them will be a circular movement, not a progressive one.



But yes. Of course! Because this (from what you say anyway) happened in Iraq, this is the reason for the Rwandan genocide. Because the two have so much in common with one another and had the same history and development. Thank god we've finally found the one reason for every last problem in the world, that one thing that causes all the problems in the world. You should write a book about this, you'll be famous!


I never said they had anything in common other than they had deep sectarian divides which would prevent them from becoming an economic viable nation.

You haven't addressed that point yet, only saying that the Belgians are responsible which doesn't matter at all to Rwanda's future prospects.



Listen shit for brains because I am getting tired of repeating myself. The genocide in Rwanda is far more complicated than you could ever imagine, since you refuse to move beyond the utterly immature idea that it's all just old ethnic hatreds coming up. As I've said before (and as I doubt you will), read a goddamn book on the subject and you'll see.


I'm never going to read a book on the subject. I don't care about the subject. Practically every nation in sub-Saharan Africa has an at least somewhat similiar history, and they still remain in the shithole. And that, quite frankly, is why nobody cares and why it's still an economic disaster zone.

[Joby]

the europeans never left, africa is still made up of semi-colonies dominated by imperialist capital.

this is why much of africa is impoverished.

Dominated by Imperialist Capital?

What other Capital would they have otherwise?



poverty leads to violence, as obviously the less there is to go round, the more you need to compete for it, so the more violent you need to be. if me and you were in a room and there was only food for one of us to survive we'd be pretty violent too.


Africa isn't a room. It's possibly the most naturally rich continet on Earth.


therefore imperialism pits different communities in semi-colonies against each other, utilising inter-ethnic rivalries as people compete for scarce wealth along community lines.

And once imperialism leaves, these people have the same shit under a dictator. Like they have had, for the most part, since, Oh, the begining of civilization or so.

[JazzRemington]

It doesn't matter how they came to their current state of two groups hating each other.

Until they do get some enlightenment, history for them will be a circular movement, not a progressive one.

I once again repeat my earlier statement, which mocks your idea that they will one day somehow gain enlightenment.




I never said they had anything in common other than they had deep sectarian divides which would prevent them from becoming an economic viable nation.

That and the physical environment, over population, lack of natural resource availability, and a general level of poverty.


You haven't addressed that point yet, only saying that the Belgians are responsible which doesn't matter at all to Rwanda's future prospects.

Basically, they created the road that Rwanda was forced down. But they're not in anyway responsible for the current sectarianism. :rolleyes:

Of course, when the UN came in in the early 90s to bring stability, Belgium was put in charge (and the main UN force was Belgian). But by that time, it was pretty much too late. A country with such deep problems as Rwanda needs more than just people coming in and trying, by force, to intervene.



I'm never going to read a book on the subject. I don't care about the subject. Practically every nation in sub-Saharan Africa has an at least somewhat similiar history, and they still remain in the shithole. And that, quite frankly, is why nobody cares and why it's still an economic disaster zone.[/quote]

No shit, Sherlocke.

[Zurdito]

Africa isn't a room. It's possibly the most naturally rich continet on Earth.

Well done, "Africa isn't a room", you are a sharp one.

My point was that scarcity breeds violence, therefore socieities in which people suffer from scarcity are usually violent socieities. Most societies in africa experience scarcity as a daily reality, regardless of the natural resources potentially available. Therefore, the example applies.

The question of WHY those societies suffer from scarcity is a different one.

Please stop twisting arguments to make people's words appear to have a different meaning to what was actually being said.


And once imperialism leaves, these people have the same shit under a dictator.

What? Africa as a region is dominated by imperialism today. How do you know what may or may not happen if this one day changes?


Like they have had, for the most part, since, Oh, the begining of civilization or so.

What's your point? Like everywhere else, people in Africa are cosntantly changing. The causes of dictatorship today are completely different to previous problems the region faced before it was colonised.

[PRC-UTE]

Many Marxists, here and elsewehere, believe that the "History of the Class Struggle" can explain away most trends that have existed throughout histpry. War is explained away as a capitalist fetish, famine as a tool of the elite's.

However, this view fails to show how certain groups, over time, became succesfull over others. Why did nations almost completely void of any scarce natural reascouces, such as Japan, develop and succeed while nations with much more potential fail? The answer lies with the ability of certain groups to unite around the "nation," as opposed to the ancient tribal instincts they may have.

It's not a secret why Japan developed; it exploited colonies for resources as Europe did. It was more warlike because of its fuedelist culture, (different from indochina's which emphasised cooperative values) that emphasised duty and a martial spirit.

The Marxist school of thought does not fail to understand these distinctions- though I would be the first to point out that many Marxists have an understanding of history that is simplist and approximate.



As TomK has argued, capitalist "carrots" played a role in getting all major parties in the Northern Ireland conflict to end the conflict -- Likely because of the failure of their economy as compared to the one to the south. On the same note, the only way that the Palestinian issue can be solved is by guaranteeing the Palestinians living in the occupied territories a real stake in the system. When unemployment and poverty reach the levels they do there, anybody can fund a "Resistance movement." Now, at the same time, it might just be easier to deal with controlling them.

Even more fundamental an issue is that Israel is stealing their water, and often piosoning what wells remain...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why hasn't anybody here talked about subsidized trade between developed countries and Africa, possibly as a minimum demand?