6 ms·

I think to an extent the violence the Europeans inflicted weren't that much different that the violence neighboring groups did. For much of history you had loca

• defrost 2y ago
  There's an argument made that "our" (western) history of civil conflict in Africa and elsewhere is the only | principle written english history of such neighbouring violence and largely omits the actions of European actors in playing "divide and conquer" as part of the colonial playbook. The role of France in the Rwandan Genocide was underplayed at the time and still relatively undiscussed. The role of the US and France in extracting very high grade uranium from the Congo during the Cold War was almost unreported until well after and surrounded by a halo of funded conflict and destabilising warlords that prevented any local governance arising to challenge the relocation of valuable resources. The British Kenyan Colony, now dissolved, was defended from the Mau Mau uprising against the British by stoking neighbouring conflicts and arming at below cost groups that would act in the interest of Britain. A consistent story in colonies is that the violence Colonisers directly inflicted was very often the least part of the violence they initiated in a delibrate strategy of destabilisation.