<< Back to Off-topic Forum   Search

Posts 31 - 42 of 42   <<Prev   1  2  3  
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 18:32:01


Skapis9999
Level 61
Report
If we were in a diplo a would make GeneralPE a PE!! Come racist fascist filthy guy... you know that people are starving because of colonialism....
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 18:42:10


Angry Frog
Level 8
Report
Africa is filled with heathens that need ruling with an iron fist.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 19:00:06

Welsh Knight
Level 59
Report
agree,
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 19:38:47


Skapis9999
Level 61
Report
Africa is filled with heathens that need ruling with an iron fist.


USA needs an iron fist as well but we do not tell it..
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 19:46:36


Angry Frog
Level 8
Report
Lucky for me I'm not American.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 20:15:23


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
Greece is filled with infidels, they must be ruled by the sultan for the good of them.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/12/2016 20:19:44


Angry Frog
Level 8
Report
Of course ! ^ Olives and Debt.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/13/2016 10:45:34


Skapis9999
Level 61
Report
lol @ Major General Smedley Butler you cannot understand wht is happening in Greece... Nobody can... Greeks are stranger than any other nation....
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/13/2016 11:04:07


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
^ Wrong, Basques are even more bizarre than the Greeks, see the word itself "bizarre" etymologically comes from our language.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/13/2016 11:29:11


Ox
Level 58
Report
Was colonialism better for Africa?

Lol hell no it wasn't. Why such a misleading title?

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?

Now the actual question instead of just the clickbait. I am not positive that many countries would WANT to help out Africa that much. It could so easily lead to more exploitation of the native people and resources. Just because countries are colonising again doesn't mean that AIDS and Ebola will suddenly disappear... They would've happened regardless. Also, who gets what? There will be squabbles / fights over that. It's waaay too risky to consider imo.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/14/2016 00:05:28


Trogdor
Level 54
Report
The guy who was spitting out crap about China being so good to Africa lmao.

Chinese companies are basically having the people of Africa illegally poach and kill a shit ton of animals and plants for their "needs" and in the process China gives them things like money and roads but another part of this is that African communities (my post isn't about China's involvement in the government) have to cover up all of this junk. In the long run this stuff is just going to wreck the African eco-systems.
But to the governing parties of Africa: China's economy is falling apart and being based mainly on huge building projects or 1 cent an hour minimum wage kind-of jobs. Africa is becoming extremely dependent on China for facilities and services so when China decides to pull out like all other colonial nations: they're going to be devastated. China is trying to get "allies" in case something happens to the country's communist party like a revolution. China is constantly at the brink of revolution with 500-ish censored protests a year from Tibet's "autonomous region" which ignores actual Tibet and my post ignores the constant uprising from Uigerstan which uses WEAPONS on the Chinese government. In conclusion:
Colonization is NEVER good, it causes genocide and empty exploitation.
Was colonialism better for Africa?: 4/19/2016 20:23:08


THEFAGISDADDY
Level 29
Report
yes
Posts 31 - 42 of 42   <<Prev   1  2  3