Colonisation is OVER

European countries have colonised and used Africa's land and people for some time, from the Portuguese to the British, and yet we've stopped trying to "take over" African countries.  Contemporary times seem to be focused on reparations or dealing with the consequences of colonisation, instead of continued use and exploitation of the land.  Why?  Is the land that shitty that agriculture won't continue to thrive?  Are the people that lazy that they can't force everyone to work towards industrialising civilization? 

Also, how can we terraform dry and arid land into fertile soil in order to grow crops?  This applies to Africa, the middle east, and parts of asia.  There is so much unused land, so why can't it be infused with nutrients, fertilizer, nitrates, etc.

>>1
Depends on what you're asking.
Why can't it?
Or Why won't it?

Why do European countries seem so uninterested in developing and using Africa, compared to the past few centuries?  Have they all given up?  There are still wealthy industries run by wealthy individuals, such as diamond mines and rubber, but as a whole no one seems to be interested in making Africa a modern civilization with great industrial and agricultural output. 

Something like Brazil, for an agricultural example.   

>>3

Exactly, the less educated these people are and the more impoverished they are...the more they can take from them. Simple enough answer for you? Because that's the basic truth.

Why would anyone want to have anything to do with Africa? It's just a sack full of problems.

If I was European, I'd invest my cash somewhere more profitable, like Asia or at home (particularly those former-communist countries). They have educated populations, (relatively) stable governments, infrastructure, and a little spare cash too.

Africa? You might as well wipe your ass with your investments, for all the good it'll do.

>>5

You don't know what you're talking about. The problems of Africa could've been wiped out using the all the money we've spent on Iraq.

>>6
Huh? Uh, no.

First off, most of Europe isn't in Iraq. That's America's little pet project; go bother the US government. Second, building up that kind on infrastructure doesn't cost billions, it costs trillions. It's a massive investment. Even if all the Western countries decided to invest everything they had in Africa, it would take a long time. Africa is big.

But, ultimately, why bother? Investing in other markets is a better idea. You get more of a return over the same period of time. Only after all other markets have been developed or exhausted will investors turn to Africa. It really is the very bottom of the pile.

>>7

Why bother? Because you care about human life, maybe? Not good enough? Let me ask you this: Do you see a real difference between the infrastructure in Iraq and the infrastructure in some African countries? (Other than Islam?) Would you only be willing to get involved with Africa when an anti-west sentiment grows there and one of your trains get bombed? The bigger question overall is why would one wait to allow an anti-west sentiment to grow in a region? Is it to repeat another Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

Also, I think you're missing the point entirely. The shift of European nations to being opposed to military solutions in Iraq is fairly recent in comparison to when all this got kicked off. However, the idea was to make Iraq an example to the middle east. Same can apply to Africa. Take one African country- invest in it WITHOUT taking it over and putting an "American" face on everything and see how long it'll take others to overthrow their warlords and get a piece of that stability. Another upside is that while you're investing in the region- you would at least have people who are grateful for the help. 

Overall, your entire reasoning behind not providing aid to Africa is that it's "big" and their is nothing in it for you. And I'm saying that because it's big and the potential for the region to go pro-west or anti-west is the reason you should look to get involved.

Like it or not, believe it not- eventually the regions that seem hopeless are going to wake up and when they do it would be in ones best interest to say that they were an integral part of that. 

>>8
That's all nice in theory, however, there is a finite amount of money to go around. You can only "help" so many people, so you'll need to invest where there will be the best effect. Africa seems to be a money sink, thanks to disease and constant conflict. All the food and cash that has been sent there over the decades seems to make no difference, thanks to the political situation.

So, don't you think it's unfair that you're throwing money away when you could help many more people elsewhere?

And heaven forbid you deal with real investors. They could give a flying fuck about idealism. They invest to get a return.

>>9

Again, you seem to operating under the impression that people have invested a great deal of money into African, well guess what?

THEY HAVEN'T.

And what little money has been invested is squandered away by Hussien-like regimes. It's because people overall, aren't paying attention to Africa. I guess when they bomb your country, you'll start taking an interest.

What do you propose we do? March in with an army and take over a region?

No, I think investing elsewhere is a better idea. Cheaper and to more effect. Instead of wasting money on an expensive military occupation, we could be spending it on things like improved education and infrastructure.

THEY HAVEN'T.

And why do you think that is?

>>11

Part of the reason in the west is a lack of education, the prevalence of apathy and "convenient ideologies" over ethics, morality and common sense. I realize the one thing a person doesn't want to hear in *any* debate is that they are apart of the problem. But that's the truth of the matter.

That's a remarkably rosy way of seeing things. In reality businesses won't invest because of political instability, large amount of disease and violence, little education, and almost no infrastructure.

There is no point setting up shop if tomorrow the government claims everything belongs to them or the guerillas down the street decide bombing is fun, or if everyone is so sick they cannot work well, or (for some kinds of business) they aren't educated. And how are you supposed to do anything if the power grid is almost nonexistent and it takes two hours to place a phone call (true story)? Satellite is expensive.

Convincing governments is yet another matter. They already spend too much, hence their debts. If you want them to spend more, they'll need to jack up the taxes, and most citizens aren't interested in that. And what's the point investing with warlords and dictators pocketing everything?

>>13

But the real reality of it is the big businesses WANT to invest in places that have political instability, violence, disease, little education, almost no infrastructure. SEE: Iraq, China (sans the infrastructure bit). They don't have to follow very many rules that way.

Again, I think it points back to what I said in >>12. Western ignorance, apathy and predisposition to convenient ideologies is what has led to the problems Africa is currently experiencing in the first place. Part of the problem is that those who are investing in Africa are working WITH the current infrastructure however violent or unstable it may be.

Alot of the problem in the third world are a direct or in-direct result of the west's "smash and grab" mentality. If you are sitting here defending it, then you are a part of that problem.

big businesses WANT to invest in places that have political instability

No, they don't. They want to invest somewhere where they can get stinking rich. Political instability means risk, so unless they stand go gain lucrative returns, they'll go elsewhere. In the case of Iraq, it's going along with the US porkbarrel, or grappling with OPEC. China is receiving investment because their government is opening up to them, and they have bother infrastructure, an educated population, and dirt-cheap rates.

Africa apparently doesn't offer enough to interest businesses for the time being, otherwise you can be certain they'd be investing. They don't care about people or cultures, what they care about is maximizing return. If Africa offered them that, they'd be all over it.

I neglected to mention that China has a stable government. Not a particularly pleasant place, but they'll kick the unfortunate asses of anyone you want if you grease the right palms.

>>15

That's a very nice way of looking at things if you believe that big business isn't about big risk and total control. You say "they don't" like Coca-Cola wasn't in league with Nazi Germany DURING WW2, or like we don't have western oil barons currently investing in Africa and the middle east.

As for the rest, I'll just repeat what I said in >14.

Again, I think it points back to what I said in >>12. Western ignorance, apathy and predisposition to convenient ideologies is what has led to the problems Africa is currently experiencing in the first place. Part of the problem is that those who are investing in Africa are working WITH the current infrastructure however violent or unstable it may be.

Alot of the problem in the third world are a direct or in-direct result of the west's "smash and grab" mentality. If you are sitting here defending it, then you are a part of that problem.

But, oil barons do stand to gain lucrative returns do they not?  Someone investing in say, a chain of 7-11's in africa wouldn't stand t o gain very much would they?

Oh god, it'd be like robberies nightly.

Alot of the problem in the third world are a direct or in-direct result of the west's "smash and grab" mentality.

It's been several decades since the West left most of Africa to its own devices. Unlike Asia, Africa has very little to show for it. The problem lies within.

We don't invest in africa because the natives tend to either destroy or 'nationalize' anything that becomes successfull. Why would you spend billions on infastructure when the next warlord decides he's just gonna take over your shit and give it back to the 'people'? 

>>18
Oil barrens benifit from other regions being politically unstable, NOT when theirs are under attack. If iraq isn't pumping out it's quota, that means a barren somewhere else can either pump out more or sell what he has for more.

>>20
That's why before he does you import more powerful soviet weaponry than he has.

>>19

Yeah. Like two.

Two decades.

You can shut up now.

>>22
Oh, wow, the evil whiteys left Congo in 1986? Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Zambia, Swaziland, and so many others, right? Oh, wait, what am I saying?! Africa consists of only three countries: South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia! Silly me!
 
And England handed over Hong Kong in 1945, right? RIGHT!

>>23

Huh? Let me clarify: Many Africans will tell you that colonization didn't end until maybe FIFTEEN years ago, if you want to get exact. Regardless, the effects of HUNDREDS of years of colonization aren't going to be reversed in 20 years, especially not to the exent Africa was colonized. Also: A vast amount of that continent's wealth is still in the hands of the white as the fruits of modern colonization itself.

Try reading a book sometime.

>>24  Many Africans will tell you that colonization didn't end until maybe FIFTEEN years ago, if you want to get exact.

Then they need to count on their fingers again and try for a more accurate answer next time.

>>25

That *is* the accurate answer. You're the one who is wrong and doesn't know what the fuck they're on about- AS USUAL. Your stupidity is a trademark on these boards.

A vast amount of that continent's wealth is still in the hands of the white as the fruits of modern colonization itself.

Like?

>>26
So what were all those claims of independence in the 60s about?

I also find it amusing that the states who gained independence earliest all seem to have had genocide and civil wars recently.

Rubber plantations.  Diamond mines.

>>28

Well, Kudos to you for finding human suffering amusing. Aparthied ended in the eighties in the most developed nation in Africa. There's no escaping from what the history books say.

Allowing to repeat a very important point: Regardless, the effects of HUNDREDS of years of colonization aren't going to be reversed in 20 years, especially not to the exent Africa was colonized. Also: A vast amount of that continent's wealth is still in the hands of the white as the fruits of modern colonization itself.

And in the hands of rich black leaders and capitalists who squander the wealth rather than distribute it.  Same with a lot of middle eastern countries.

Excuse me for noticing, but apartheid is over in Africa, Zimbabwe has turned into a black fascism and every revolutionary/warlord in Africa is black.

Clearly whites are being skapegoated by these tyrants to hide their own thievery. If you actually want to do your race a favour you should realise you are inferior and are better off feeding from an intellectually and physically superior white male's hand and proceeding to go extinct as quietly as possible, so that populations in the future won't have to suffer by having your genes.

P.S. Being able to run fast or having a brain that responds well to trauma due to it's small size doesn't make you superior.

It doesn't matter whether its BLACK or WHITE both you are sucks donkey ballz anyway...long live JEWS

Colonization in Africa was that brief period of time in which Whites attempted to force Negroes to behave contrary to their nature.  Whites stepped in and stopped cannibalism and the slave trade, built schools and hospitals and roads and industry, and attempted to give the Negro the gifts of civilization.

Then the Whites left, the Negroes burned the schools and the hospitals, and went back to enslaving and eating one another the very moment Whites were no longer holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to behave in such an unnatural manner.

And ever since, self-hating apologists like >>28 have wrung their hands and said "dat beez racisms!  It beez de White man's fault!"  They say the same thing when Negroes living in Western lands do what comes naturally to them as well, and make the same excuses:

Often high, Thrives in Jail
His welfare check
Is in the mail.
Some 40 offspring have been had,
Not one will ever
call him "Dad."
And yet he hollers day and night:
 "I blames de WHITE MAN
    fo my plight,
  it's HIM spreads trash
    all round my shack,
  it's HIM what makes me
    smoke dis crack,
  HE push my kind
    to burn and loot,
  HE sends de po-leece
    dat we shoot ..."

Yes, blame the blacks for selling whites slaves.  It's their fault whites paid money for them. 

Black slaves were not sold by blacks to whites.Whites tricked them into thinking they were going to live a much better life than they were living in a foreign country.They tricked Native indians with gifts such as blankets which contained diseases that slowly infected the population over time so they would die.These peace loving indians did not think that people would be so cruel,so they accepted them.

>>36
Can be summarised by word: owned.

>>36
So what about the 100s of accounts of slaves being dragged across the country in shackles? If someone beats the crap out of you and chains you up and tells you that you are being brought to a better life, does this mean you were fooled into becomming a slave? No. It doesn't mean anything.

Only a few pirates were involved in the slave trade and the colonists were told they were not human, so most whites were innocent in all of this. Only the miniscule number of white pirates and the huge number of black slavers were the ones with malicious intent.

If anything you should thank people with white genes since there's was the first civilisation to value liberty and eventually abolish slavery, many whites were willing to risk their lives to end slavery during the American civil war, this is pure selflessness since they probably profitted from cheap cotton and sugar to begin with and certainly didn't profit from a bloody war. This can only mean that white genes make people more likely to be compassionate and rational.

>>38
By white genes I don't mean the single gene responsible for the amount of melanin in the skin, i mean the genes whcih differentiate between the white-caucasian sub-species and other human sub-species.

Oh man, history is being oversimplified by both sides here so much it hurts.

A little island in the caribbean called Trinidad and Tobago which was then owned by the Spaniards,was the very first place in the western world that abolished slavery in 1833 as opposed to the US abolishment around 1960.Believe it or not.