Read this first.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html
So, do you think colonialism is preferable to the current situation? I am inclined to say so. If we could have colonialism with moderate human rights, I am sure it would be better than the AIDS/Ebola infested, mud-drinking hell-hole Africa is now. What about you?

And without the racism and slave trade too

no

Why?

Was Europe better in German rule, or the grand old Japanese-led East Asia Prosperity Ball?

Edited 4/12/2016 00:55:31

No, because they can have plumbing and technology and water and medicine without the concentration camps. That is a straw man analogy. Try again.

No, because they can have plumbing and technology and water and medicine without the concentration camps.

Ok, was the Japanese East Asia Prosperity Ball (without any concentration camps, mind you) good besides the racist bits? Or Germany?

That is a straw man analogy.

Do you know what straw man means? It's not it.

Also, your generalisation of Africa into AIDS/Ebola infested, mud-drinking hell-hole, well, it's just false for most Africa (coming from someone who lives in Africa).

Edited 4/12/2016 01:06:37

In Asmara, the main street, it's called Viale Mussolini.

Edited 4/12/2016 01:07:24

The Europeans were quite find of killing folk willy-nilly, but there were a few positives. Were the positives more than the negatives? Depends on how much you value human life. The Germans committed ethnic cleansing in Nambia, but they helped the infrastructure there. The Belgians committed awful atrocities against the Congolese and they didn't help much. The British and French helped build the Suez Canal and that's great for Egypt. It's a mixed bag.

Colonialism was bad for Africa because they were getting diseased, exploited, drugged, etc by European powers, for European benefit. Liberia may be an exception, but most African tribes were better off not being exposed to the rest of the world, whether developed or not doesn't matter, as Africa has a severe geographical disadvantage, as being trapped by desert, and communication is stifled with a rain-forest. South America shows similar struggles.

Like MGSB said, British and French powers did a lot of good in architecture, but I value all human lives.

Belgians in the Congo were very bad, and they started a (Civil) War, where Africans were killing their neighbors for thousands of years.

Edited 4/12/2016 01:15:05

Another interesting article on the topic
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/11/opinion/op-ferguson11

That article doesn't take things really in perspect. 22.5m $ is about 0.8 $ for each Ghanian, for a whole year, so the article doesn't have anything to say in the grounds that America was actually trying to help in a significant way, as even the Ghanian daily income is better than the American yearly help. 20m $ to celebrate something culturally important (would American government just say, nope, we're over 100% in foreign debt, we're saving this year. No independence day celebrations 2016, sorry. Moreover, it's an anniversary, so pretend this is all in 1975.) amounts to 0.7$ for each Ghanian.

Though it's bad for Ghanian, it's culturally important to them and I bet most would approve of the spending on it, just like Americans approve of mad military spending while under debt.

I'm all for unionism, but also for democracy. Few Africans will want the European power back, it'd be like inviting Japan to take Oahu. Japan is great with islands, probably better than America, and so will take better care of it...but I doubt the Oahuans care.

I'm not going to read any of these posts unless their posted by actual Africans. Only they belong in this discussion in my opinion.

but since it has already started ill say this: many blacks in America are very happy today.

Oh wow, Time found a guy who mourns colonialism and you assume that is the general opinion?

What you don't realize is, that this part of a much grander scheme.
Let me explain.
Firstly colonialism didn't end, it just changed it's face. Since the independence of the majority of African countries after World War 2, the western powers continued their engagement in Africa. The exploitation of the people and the ressource went on via the IWF and Worldbank or French Instituions, instead of direct involvement. Any democratic elected governments in Africa that tried to lead their countries out of post colonial structures that continued the exploitation, were subject to coup'etats. In the last 50 years, 45 governments have been violently toppled, with help and by command of the western powers. Countless upright Presidents have been killed by the CIA or by the Légion étrangère . France having the biggest stake in Africa, playing the biggest role. It established an exploitation system in 14 ex-colonial countries in Africa, that virtually suffocates those countries, preventing any real development and local decision making. If you want to read about the full extend which annually flushes 500 billion dollars into French pockets, read here:

http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/?utm_content=buffer8680a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

If you are interested in watching a well made documentary as a paradigm of postcolonial exploitation by the west in Africa, watch this about Thomas Sankara, nothing short but a true hero of Africa. It is defenitely one of the best documentaries you can watch about that topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgD-jhBIdiQ&nohtml5=False


But what is the grander scheme? Why is there a propagandistic effort to paint the situation of Congo black? Despite the obvious hiding of their own interests in Africa, the Western powers feel truely threatened for the first time in history. Western colonialism is about to end and that unviolently due to the involvement of China on the continent. China arrived on the continent and it is changing its face. Because now, other than the Western powers who exploited the ressources of the country without any return service, the Chinese are financing and conducting huge development programs in exchange for ressources. China provides a win-win situation and is by far more attractive to African governments than the West. In Congo alone the Chinese build tens of thousands of km of streets, more than 2000 schools, several hospitals and 2 airports in exchange for a fixed amount of ressources. In contrast, the West didnt realize any infrastructure projects that benefits the whole population and that for an indefinite amount of ressources.
This is why you will see huge propaganda efforts to paint Chinas involvement in Africa black and White-wash western involvement.

Edited 4/12/2016 05:58:22

^

@myhandisonfire +1

Western powers still colonize africa, that can't be argued against.


Now for you GeneralPE, I have a question. Can you stay a hole week without posting any stupidity? Really. Just one week? Last week you were claiming that Spain had a secret plan to make kids become muslims, now you say that colonialism is a great idea, next week you might say that the only way to fix the drug problem in mexico is to do an american invasion.

Seriously, the ammount of stupidity you post here is beyond imagination.

Can you stay a hole week without posting any stupidity?

Ah, always nice to see liberals being so tolerant.

Ah, always nice to see liberals being so tolerant.

This goes for both sides I suppose.