Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago#131,658
How come it never crossed their minds to simply do the same thing that was done to them? Most of them have money, power and influence. So how come it never crossed one of them to simply become a hilterlike dictator and round up all whites to concentration camps or anything equivalent to those times? or if the blacks that hold some power in the US start forming their own party to the point they win enough seats and just reintroduce segregation bu severly limit white influence? have a white jim crow laws and what not; Essentially just flip the whole script on its head.
because from what I surmise it seems like either they're not aware of that or they lack absolute conviction to follow through because perhaps some of them have this idealistic and misguided beliefs that its more righteous to not stoop the same level as the oppressors.
But Id like to know what the black person thinks of this.
> Antifa ia your crew then, they'll welcome you with open arms.
meh are they really though? they dont seem extremly organized. they're like that group of "hacktivist" anonymous. no real plan or organization. just a rag tag bunch crying for a few days but then fuck off to parts unknown.
The first is that African countries obviously would have been the most radically anti-western right after colonialism ended. But this is when African countries were the weakest. They were very poor, are still poor, but more so back then. Even the most authoritarian African state didn’t really have the ability to manage resources to actually fight the west. (Idi Amin tried conquering counties like Hitler but lost to Tanzania).
The second reason is because contrary to what some people think, there were countries in Africa before white people colonized Africa. People make racist jokes about black people saying "we were kings." But the truth is, there actually were monarchies in sub-sharan Africa. The borders of these monarchies correlated with aspects of ethnicity such as language and traditional African religions. Africa is very diverse, culturally, linguistically, and genetically even if in the west we categorize them all as black. Africans in Africa don’t necessarily see it the way we do. In America, if you’re African you’re just black. In Africa, the borders of countries have very little to do with ethnic divisions. For example, somebody might look at a black guy from Nigeria and think "oh he’s black" or maybe "oh he’s Nigerian" and assume that’s what he identifies with rather than, "this is an ethnically Edo man from Edo state who speaks Edo." So it’s hard to create radical nationalist sentiment the way you can in Europe, where most people in say they’re French, whether they mean that ethnically or they mean that in terms of nationality, it doesn’t matter, they all think of themselves as French first, so they have one common identity. This doesn’t mean that African culture is inferior in any way as racists will accuse, it just means there are more groups with conflicting interests. Therefore, divisive ideologies that promote ethnic purity will inevitably lead to internal conflict. So it’s not ideal.
I think the third reason is because, populists like to scapegoat minorities, but in a lot of African countries, white people aren’t really a minority, they just aren’t there in the first place. You do see more radical movements in countries like South Africa for example with the EFF, where there is a significant white minority. But in other parts of Africa, say the DRC or Nigeria or Kenya, if you look up what percentage of the population is white, most of the time you’ll either get single digit percentages or "less than 1%" as an answer. Most sub-Saharan Africans outside Southern Africa probably aren’t thinking about white people most of the time because they almost never actually interact with white people in their daily lives in the first place. That doesn’t mean they don’t have opinions about Europe or whatever, but it’s not the single most important thing to them in their daily lives. Southern Africa has more white people, because before the Suez Canal was built, the only way to get to Asia was you had to go all the way around the entire continent of Africa, so Europeans kept stopping in Southern Africa to resupply. Which is also why South Africa is wealthier per capital than most other African countries, it’s located in a better place geographically which is why it was "more colonized" in the first place. But apartheid didn’t benefit South Africa unlike what some people claim. The economy was objectively worse under apartheid.
DiversityHireKamikazePilot double-posted this 1 month ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,407,832
At least between left wing ideologies and right wing ideologies, Nazism is more of a right wing thing. Due to Africa’s diversity, you would think socialist governments would be more appealing, but despite what some ignorant people might say, there literally isn’t a single socialist country in Africa. Every single country is capitalist. Africa’s poverty isn’t a failure of socialism, because there’s no socialism. Africa tens to be relatively religious overall, which makes people lean towards more conservative views. So there’s this dual thing going on where they’re too diverse to have Nazi like governments but too religiously conservative to be communist. So authoritarian African governments tend to be sort of boring. They sort of resemble Russia where there’s a president and a legislature and elections but the same guy always wins. But they’re not ideologically interesting.
DiversityHireKamikazePilot replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,407,837
European countries actually used to be similar in terms of diversity, but homogenous national identity is something that had to be artificially created. For example, Germany didn’t fully unify until 1871. Before that during the Holy Roman Empire, the feudal German system of government was incredibly complex and divided. The idea of one German nation unified by Prussia is more of a myth that was created by nationalists in order to create a German identity. That could happen in Africa eventually, but it’s a process that takes generations. For example, it took 60 years from Germany to go from being ununified to being some crazy purity obsessed racist nationalist country under Hitler. African countries would take even longer than that, because it would be like say, trying to convince French and German and Italian people they’re all one nation. Doing that isn’t impossible it’s just really really hard and would take a really long time. The US had a huge advantage in this regard because only Europeans who wanted to be American bothered coming here which made it super easy.
DiversityHireKamikazePilot triple-posted this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,407,841
Even Japanese nationalism, from what I’ve seen when I looked into, was an ideology that was invented in the 1800s. They had the advantage of being isolated on an island which made it easier to unify Japan both culturally and politically. But without being an expert on it, I get the sense that the industrialization of Japan was a top-down decision from emperor Meiji. I think if there were more islands in Africa, something similar could have happened leading to an African nation industrializing much earlier. But all the African monarchies were defeated by the Europeans because Africa lacks natural barriers. So Asia didn’t fair great, but they did quite a bit better due to geography mostly.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,407,875
There’s a post-colonial trend of neo-colonialism. The first thing that Nehru did was impose his vision of India on Indians, scuttled autonomous regions, crushed any dissent, muffled the Sikhs. Same thing in Indonesia under Sukarno and Suharto. Togo and other countries lashed out at minorities deemed foreign.
Edward Said, of course, ignored this. Franz Fanon analyzed it because he was more intellectual. See his remarks on “the pitfalls of national consciousness.”
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,407,876
Here are some more:
- Singhalese oppressing Tamils in Sri Lanka
- Vietnam going after Vietnamese-Chinese merchants
- Myanmar vs. the Rohingya
- Rwanda (Tutsi minority) and Burundi (Hutu minority)
- Indonesians against West Papua
- The Pakistani army attempting to rule Bangladesh then resorting to mass rape and genocide
Of course we could try to blame it all on European colonialism, but Belgians didn’t wield the machetes in Rwanda, and the British Raj attempted to harmonize ethnic and religious differences.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,407,877
@1,407,875 (E)
I’m actually pretty optimistic about India. If you compare China’s rate of economic growth from 1980 to around 2015 or so to India’s current rate of economic growth, it’s pretty similar.
DiversityHireKamikazePilot replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,407,881
@previous (G)
If it takes two people to make a baby, and everybody in China for the most part is only having one child, if I’m telling the truth, I really wouldn’t be very surprised if in 2100 India has a higher GDP than China. I’d give it 50:50 odds.