Political Crossfire Forums

[marxistrevolutionary]

[color=red]this may seem like a leap to somebody but if you think about it it makes logical sense. the european post world war 1 policies to there african nations lead to the genocides we see today, such as in Rwanda the europeans labeled one group of africans as enforcers and they were given more priveleges, but the only way they held these privileges was the power of the european governments staying in Rwanda, if you think about it it's really a pretty good strategy, by splitting the population there is no way the people will unite against you, which is the only way to hold the most power that is possible. but when the european nations left after world war 2 the africans labeled as enforcers suddenly found themselves with no power and the africans labeled as subserviant sudenly rrose up and gained revenge for 50-100 years of oppresion. leading to civil war which then perpetuates a culturak unviersal of fighting violence and denial, with each side trying to kill each other and neither willing to call a ceasefire long enough to prepare a peace plan. you can see this many times, lsuch as in the belgian congo, sudan, Rwanda, the list goes on.

[Marcus Aurelius]

A pretty good case, but you're forgetting that Africans have never been shy about killing their neighbors. If Mr. Rodgers had moved to Rwanda, he would have been stripped naked and burned alive. So while I would agree that European foreign policy aggravated the situation, bringing out the g-word is a little premature. I believe Africa would still be a hellhole without European colonialization (maybe a higher circle, but just barely) and genocide has to be intentional. the Europeans didn't want to rule of a mass cemetary, so regardless of their incompetence, they weren't (in this case) war criminals

[marxistrevolutionary]

where do you get the information that africans were murderers before europeans showed up? all information we have on their early culture is what the europeans told us.

[alex.rj.martin]

Marcus Aurelius wrote: So while I would agree that European foreign policy aggravated the situation, bringing out the g-word is a little premature.

Hundreds upon thousands (or maybe millions. dont want to overshoot) of native people were killed by the Hutu's as a result of this policy. I'm sure the dead bodies of Tutsi men women and children would disagree that "bringing out the g- word is a little prematrue". I also think that the UN bodies who deemed this as an atrocity (partly for their lack of involvement) would think this is genocide as a definition. Agreed? Good.

[marxistrevolutionary]

than you once agian alex for understanding my point. as i was saying all info that we ahve on the afrcians was based upon what we learned after they came across the europeans. and the european policy of sepersating 2 calsses one ruling and one serving led to some massive retrobution

[Lancaster]

I'm not sure you grasp the whole situation....


This goes waaaaay back, farther back than world war one. All the way back to triangular trade, prior to that Africa was as developed as Europe. With triangular trade Europe developed, Africa stagnated. This put Africa in the position it still is in, one where it lags behind the rest of the world. As you clearly know, Europe medled further. My point: Europe is to blame for far more than genocide

(an interesting side note, Britain Carved up the Ottomon Empire without taking into consideration ethnic groups, this is the stem of much of the middle eastern conflicts)

[marxistrevolutionary]

i am terribly sorry for overlooking that far more obvious point than the one i was trying to make