4 ms·

> The UAE is laundering dirty gold, cleaning it, and reselling it to China and India. South African here. When you say UAE ... well ... do you mean African des

> The UAE is laundering dirty gold, cleaning it, and reselling it to China and India. South African here. When you say UAE ... well ... do you mean African despots, their cronies, henchmen and accomplices? Because that is what is happening: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/how-the-gupta-brothers-hijacked-south-africa-corruption-bribes https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/how-the-gupta-brothe... Should UAE crack down on it? Sure, why not. Should we be clear that Africans are fucking over Africans and that it is not some external oppressing force that is to blame. Also yes.

mk89 7y ago
>Should we be clear that Africans are fucking over Africans and that it is not some external oppressing force that is to blame. Also yes. I understand your frustration. I have a (white) South African friend that feels the same, and when he says that to people, most of the time the first answer is "it's due to what the white men did". This of course enforces even more the idea that someone else is to blame...
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  Many unstable countries can directly tie their current tribal problems (a major source of war and strife in Africa) back to colonial policies. It's not an excuse, but it is definitely partially to blame. Let's take the DRC since the article is about them. When King Leopold claimed the Congo Free State, he introduced a regime where atrocities were common-place. It was infamous even by colonial standards. When it became the Belgian Congo (1908), the worst crimes stopped, but racism/segregation and forced labor were still commonplace. After independence (1960), they elected president Lumumba. Looking for international help to stabilize the new country, Lumumba was turned away by the US, but got an agreement from the USSR to provide aid. Upon hearing this, the US set up an embargo to prevent Congo from receiving any of the arms and then supported a coup by Mobuto which led to Lumumba's murder. Mobuto, supported by the anti-USSR powers, made himself fabulously rich and ran the economy and government of the DRC (one of the most resource rich countries on earth) into the gutter. In 1997 Kabila's rebellion pushed out Mobuto and there has been war and rebellions for the better part of the past 22 years. Given its rich resources and poor government control, other nearby African nations have encouraged the conflict so that they are able to profit from the resources (most notably minerals into Uganda and Rwanda). The DRC never even had a chance to establish a good government Everyone is responsible for their actions and history isn't an excuse, but it's pretty easy to see how a history of resource exploitation and human rights abuse encouraged by western powers has led directly to a country full of resource exploitation and human rights abuse. African colonies are not ancient history.
  - crowdpleaser 7y ago
    Colonalists and anti-colonalists share the same fundamental attribution bias of thinking everything Good or everything Bad is due to colonization. First, the Arabs took more slaves out of Africa than the Europeans. If the Africa is in a rough spot today because of slavery, we're obligated to find more fault with the Arabs than the Europeans. Additionally, the Arabs took slaves themselves, Europeans simply purchased slaves from African slave catchers so factor that into your culpability calculation. Secondly, status as a colony seems non-probative for whether a country is currently a shit hole. The USA was itself a colony, as were Ireland, Singapore, and Hong Kong yet those places flourished. Why is that?
    - pergadad 7y ago
      I'm not sure whether you are aware that you changed the argument. Op was describing the effect of colonialisation on DRC. S/He wasn't discussing the impact of slavery. There were also different kinds of colonies and different ways of looking at things. Sure the US turned out fine. Other countries in the region less so. But also it's the US if today that's doing fine and you seem to overlook the rather great effect colonialisation in North America had on the natives there. They were all but wiped out and certainly, overall, are not in a great spot today. It's easy to find many different things today. The direct and still clearly visible effects of colonisation are without doubt one of the many factors that kept much of Africa in the suffering state that we still see today. There is no denying this fact and no matter how many other reasons you find, colonialism is still one of the most significant reasons for the African misery, as it set in motion many horrible things.
    - solidasparagus 7y ago
      The history I described shared the blame among several different powerful individuals and nations, only some of which were colonial. The DRC gained 'independence' 60 years ago. 60 years after the US's independence, we were in constant wars with native Americans (leading to the Trail of Tears) and experiencing an economic crisis that lasted 7 years. 30 years later we would have a devastating civil war. 60 years after Ireland's independence, we were right in the middle of the three decade long Troubles. Hong Kong has never achieved independence. Flourished indeed. Stable, strong, modern government takes time and peace, neither of which DRC has had much of.

mk89 7y ago

>Should we be clear that Africans are fucking over Africans and that it is not some external oppressing force that is to blame. Also yes. I understand your frustration. I have a (white) South African friend that feels the same, and when he says that to people, most of the time the first answer is "it's due to what the white men did". This of course enforces even more the idea that someone else is to blame...

solidasparagus 7y ago
Many unstable countries can directly tie their current tribal problems (a major source of war and strife in Africa) back to colonial policies. It's not an excuse, but it is definitely partially to blame. Let's take the DRC since the article is about them. When King Leopold claimed the Congo Free State, he introduced a regime where atrocities were common-place. It was infamous even by colonial standards. When it became the Belgian Congo (1908), the worst crimes stopped, but racism/segregation and forced labor were still commonplace. After independence (1960), they elected president Lumumba. Looking for international help to stabilize the new country, Lumumba was turned away by the US, but got an agreement from the USSR to provide aid. Upon hearing this, the US set up an embargo to prevent Congo from receiving any of the arms and then supported a coup by Mobuto which led to Lumumba's murder. Mobuto, supported by the anti-USSR powers, made himself fabulously rich and ran the economy and government of the DRC (one of the most resource rich countries on earth) into the gutter. In 1997 Kabila's rebellion pushed out Mobuto and there has been war and rebellions for the better part of the past 22 years. Given its rich resources and poor government control, other nearby African nations have encouraged the conflict so that they are able to profit from the resources (most notably minerals into Uganda and Rwanda). The DRC never even had a chance to establish a good government Everyone is responsible for their actions and history isn't an excuse, but it's pretty easy to see how a history of resource exploitation and human rights abuse encouraged by western powers has led directly to a country full of resource exploitation and human rights abuse. African colonies are not ancient history.
- crowdpleaser 7y ago
  Colonalists and anti-colonalists share the same fundamental attribution bias of thinking everything Good or everything Bad is due to colonization. First, the Arabs took more slaves out of Africa than the Europeans. If the Africa is in a rough spot today because of slavery, we're obligated to find more fault with the Arabs than the Europeans. Additionally, the Arabs took slaves themselves, Europeans simply purchased slaves from African slave catchers so factor that into your culpability calculation. Secondly, status as a colony seems non-probative for whether a country is currently a shit hole. The USA was itself a colony, as were Ireland, Singapore, and Hong Kong yet those places flourished. Why is that?
  - pergadad 7y ago
    I'm not sure whether you are aware that you changed the argument. Op was describing the effect of colonialisation on DRC. S/He wasn't discussing the impact of slavery. There were also different kinds of colonies and different ways of looking at things. Sure the US turned out fine. Other countries in the region less so. But also it's the US if today that's doing fine and you seem to overlook the rather great effect colonialisation in North America had on the natives there. They were all but wiped out and certainly, overall, are not in a great spot today. It's easy to find many different things today. The direct and still clearly visible effects of colonisation are without doubt one of the many factors that kept much of Africa in the suffering state that we still see today. There is no denying this fact and no matter how many other reasons you find, colonialism is still one of the most significant reasons for the African misery, as it set in motion many horrible things.
  - solidasparagus 7y ago
    The history I described shared the blame among several different powerful individuals and nations, only some of which were colonial. The DRC gained 'independence' 60 years ago. 60 years after the US's independence, we were in constant wars with native Americans (leading to the Trail of Tears) and experiencing an economic crisis that lasted 7 years. 30 years later we would have a devastating civil war. 60 years after Ireland's independence, we were right in the middle of the three decade long Troubles. Hong Kong has never achieved independence. Flourished indeed. Stable, strong, modern government takes time and peace, neither of which DRC has had much of.