Kony2012 - a pretext for the invasion of Africa?

[Tez3]

I'm not sneering at anyone.



I think YOU missed the main point. I don't think Makalakumu meant 100 US soldiers in Africa is a prelude to invading as in taking over the entire continent. I don't agree with his conclusions, but I don't think he's stupid.



I didn't say Islam, I said radical Islam.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news...les-With-Rise-of-Radical-Islam-137949633.html



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/07/radical-islam-takes-hold/?page=all



http://www.opposingviews.com/i/poli...-qaeda-radical-islam-threaten-progress-africa



And etc. In Somalia, a failed nation with no effective central government anymore, the members of Al-Shabab, an Al-Quaida-approved Islamist faction, is slowly taking over.



I will leave your childish diatribe unanswered. I think your words speak volumes about you in this case.

Grow up. Seriously.[/QUOTE



A personal attack on me, well I'm shocked...actually I'm not, it just means you don't have an answer. You are far too touchy and too quick to see 'diatribe' where there are none, scorn yes but diatribe no. China is buying up America, it already owns much of your debt. Out of more than 50 countries in Africa a few are run by radical Islamists...and? Is Islam the new communism to you chaps? It's supposed to worry us, why? We may not like it but we can't go interfering with any government we don't like, well I expect the CIA can.

If the OP didn't mean invade 'Africa' why is it in the title?

 

[Makalakumu]

I do think these kind of excuses could set a pretext for more intervention. Think of it as a "humanitarian" invasion. Is this Kony2012 thing a propaganda op? I don't know. IMO its not out of the realm of possibility. It seems as if there is no end to the hubris of our leaders in Washington these days.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

I watched the movie and was mildly cynical until I saw the neatly wrapped secret decoder kit that was being handed out for free. Hooooooooleeeeeeeeeee sheeeeeeeeeeite! There's a bracelet inside for you and your BFF! Probably made in China...and being used to kick the Chinese out of Africa! The Hunter S. Thompson in me hopes this is true...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's an interesting blog post with some good sourced reading on the matter. Check it over...

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/more-accurate-kony-2012-campaign-poster.html

Featured here is Cecil Rhodes who helped the British Empire literally conquer a massive swath of Africa from the north all the way to the south, the portion over which Rhodes is spanning in the illustration. In memory of his megalomania, the British would name what is now modern day Zimbabwe after him, calling it "Rhodesia."

Today, US Africa Command, known as AFRICOM, is spreading across Africa in the footsteps of Cecil Rhodes. As reported by allAfrica.com, Vice Admiral Moeller at an AFRICOM meeting held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008 would declare that protecting "the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market" was one of AFRICOM's guiding principles. Of course by "global market," the admiral means the Fortune 500 corporations of Wall Street and London.

In our politically sensitive modern age, pillaging Africa in the footsteps of shameless and quite racist imperialists is very difficult to do. Therefore, Joseph Kony, Al Qaeda, Qaddafi, starving children, pirates, and every other geopolitical ploy and contrivance imaginable, and some left yet unimagined have been used to justify AFRICOM's expanding presence on a continent they have no business setting foot on.

Ironically, ploys like KONY 2012 have liberal youth clamoring for what is perhaps the next dark chapter in large scale racist imperial enslavement, plundering, and exploitation.

For excellent analysis on the KONY 2012 scam, please read Nile Bowie's "Youth Movement Promotes US Military Presence in Central Africa," and BlackStarNews.com's "KONY 2012, Invisible Children's Pro-AFRICOM and Museveni Propaganda."

 

[Tez3]

To be fair Rhodes was a product of his times and wasn't actually a megalomaniac. His legacy is far more than just adding land to the Empire. Look up Rhodes Scholars for example. (You have places in America named for various British people such as Virginia named for Elizabeth the First.) Rhodes wouldn't have seen himself nor would anyone else as a rascist, people then genuinely believed the Empire brought people into education, better living and of course Christianity, that we look back and see the faults doesn't mean the people then were doing what they did to be deliberately destructive or nasty. They really did think that Christianising natives and bringing them into 'civilisation' was a good thing. Making money was also considered a good thing, he managed to do that and pursue his ambition to make the world his empire. I don't think comparisions between him and modern day people are valid, he was a man of his times and did what men of his times did, much as we might think that immoral these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

 

[Makalakumu]

To be fair Rhodes was a product of his times and wasn't actually a megalomaniac. His legacy is far more than just adding land to the Empire. Look up Rhodes Scholars for example. (You have places in America named for various British people such as Virginia named for Elizabeth the First.) Rhodes wouldn't have seen himself nor would anyone else as a rascist, people then genuinely believed the Empire brought people into education, better living and of course Christianity, that we look back and see the faults doesn't mean the people then were doing what they did to be deliberately destructive or nasty. They really did think that Christianising natives and bringing them into 'civilisation' was a good thing. Making money was also considered a good thing, he managed to do that and pursue his ambition to make the world his empire. I don't think comparisions between him and modern day people are valid, he was a man of his times and did what men of his times did, much as we might think that immoral these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

Couldn't we make the same argument for a lot of people we consider terrible throughout history? Are we ever allowed to look backward and see actions that were performed as morally wrong?

 

[Tez3]

Couldn't we make the same argument for a lot of people we consider terrible throughout history? Are we ever allowed to look backward and see actions that were performed as morally wrong?

I think there's a difference in looking back to understand why people did what they did such as Rhodes and judging them morally. At the time Rhodes was doing his thing the other powers in the world at the time including America were doing exactly the same thing. I don't think he can be regarded as one of the worlds villians. Is what he did any worse than the American Colonisation Society?

 

[elder999]

. Is what he did any worse than the American Colonisation Society?

Yes.

Or were you tryiig to be deliberately inflammatory?

 

[Tez3]

Yes.

Or were you tryiig to be deliberately inflammatory?

Kicking out black people who had been forcibly taken to America to a life in a strange place controlled by the society?

http://www.slavenorth.com/colonize.htm


"Despite their rhetoric of sympathy for freedmen, the colonizationists' beliefs led them to oppose legislative efforts to procure civil rights for blacks and remove the barriers to work, education, and voting. Such efforts, they said, were only designed to tease an inferior people with hope of an equality that never could be real. Even white abolitionists at first were sympathetic to the colonization movement. But the plan was rejected, emphatically and early, by black leaders. They protested eloquently that they had been born in America and considered themselves Americans. In many cases their fathers had fought and shed blood for American freedom. They felt no connection to Africa, and sought none. Their focus was on political recognition by the majority in the North and abolition of slavery in the South. They rightly recognized colonization as a movement that would sap strength from the sympathetic portion of the white population, while indirectly thwarting their aims by spreading the propaganda of black inferiority. Most of the blacks who took up the society's offer to remove to Africa were recently freed slaves from the South, who had been manumitted in exchange for agreeing to emigrate. "

 

[Carol]

Referencing an older thread from last fall.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...irsty-Christian-mystic&p=1436781&#post1436781

 

[elder999]

1469332[/URL]]Kicking out black people who had been forcibly taken to America to a life in a strange place controlled by the society?

http://www.slavenorth.com/colonize.htm


"Despite their rhetoric of sympathy for freedmen, the colonizationists' beliefs led them to oppose legislative efforts to procure civil rights for blacks and remove the barriers to work, education, and voting. Such efforts, they said, were only designed to tease an inferior people with hope of an equality that never could be real. Even white abolitionists at first were sympathetic to the colonization movement. But the plan was rejected, emphatically and early, by black leaders. They protested eloquently that they had been born in America and considered themselves Americans. In many cases their fathers had fought and shed blood for American freedom. They felt no connection to Africa, and sought none. Their focus was on political recognition by the majority in the North and abolition of slavery in the South. They rightly recognized colonization as a movement that would sap strength from the sympathetic portion of the white population, while indirectly thwarting their aims by spreading the propaganda of black inferiority. Most of the blacks who took up the society's offer to remove to Africa were recently freed slaves from the South, who had been manumitted in exchange for agreeing to emigrate. "

No one who colonized Sierra Leone or Liberia was "kicked out." They chose to go-the society's stance on the status of freedmen in the U.S. was pretty much the status quo in the U.S. at the time. The plan never had much success for a variety of reasons, like the ones that you posted, and no, the intentions of the society weren't all benevolent-some of them wanted to preserve slavery.

Cecil Rhodes, though?

"I contend that we are the first race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race" Rhodes on the "British race"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#cite_note-24

"I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race...If there be a God, I think that what he would like me to do is paint as much of the map of Africa British Red as possible..."

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#cite_note-47

 

[Carol]

No one who colonized Sierra Leone or Liberia was "kicked out." They chose to go-the society's stance on the status of freedmen in the U.S. was pretty much the status quo in the U.S. at the time. The plan never had much success for a variety of reasons, like the ones that you posted, and no, the intentions of the society weren't all benevolent-some of them wanted to preserve slavery.

Cecil Rhodes, though?

Well...if you look at the impact to the indigenous tribes, is the difference as clear?

 

[elder999]

Well...if you look at the impact to the indigenous tribes, is the difference as clear?

No. Colonization of Sierra Leone was established by the British, in 1787, and it remained a British protectorate until 1961. At the time of it's establishment, though, the indigenous populace was already decimated by disease and slavery-what remained was hostile, but, by the early 1800's, and the time of the attempts at colonization by more freed American slaves by the American Colonization Society, the colony was well established and the indigenous populace had been largely integrated. The colonization of Liberia was largely driven by the American Colonization Society, and, again, integrated the indigenous populace in a short amount of time-division of ethnic groups in present day Liberia is largely based on tribal lines from the time of colonization.

So, no, Carol, the comparison doesn't hold. As someone from that part of New England, you're probably aware that my great-great-great-great-great uncle, Paul Cuffee, and his older brother, my great-great-great-great-great grandfather, John Cuffee, supplied the ships for some of those early colonization efforts, laying the groundwork for the American Colonization Society. My family has property in Sierra Leone and Liberia-such as it is, and there are streets named after my ancestors in both countries-a few other places, too.......Shortly after my father died, I had to go to both places-we support a few people over there, and it's another family tradition that I have to follow. Places are pretty much ****holes, though. While personally anti-colonial for a few reasons, I can understand the intention behind these efforts, and find comparisons to Cecil Rhodes, a man whose name is synonymous with imperialism, who thought it was his divine duty to increase the domination of the British Empire,a little offensive, and more than a little specious, at best.

 

[Tez3]

No one who colonized Sierra Leone or Liberia was "kicked out." They chose to go-the society's stance on the status of freedmen in the U.S. was pretty much the status quo in the U.S. at the time. The plan never had much success for a variety of reasons, like the ones that you posted, and no, the intentions of the society weren't all benevolent-some of them wanted to preserve slavery.

Cecil Rhodes, though?

As I said he was a man of his times, most Englishmen thought that then, most Germans thought they were in fact the greatest as did the French, the Americans etc etc. It was a common way to think then, looking back on it is easy to say 'oooh how bad of him'. He was no more or no less bad than most men in his position at the time and that includes Americans. The Germans in fact went that bit further in Africa and made the first concentration camps.

http://www.namibweb.com/ccamps.htm

 

[elder999]

As I said he was a man of his times, most Englishmen thought that then, most Germans thought they were in fact the greatest as did the French, the Americans etc etc. It was a common way to think then, looking back on it is easy to say 'oooh how bad of him'. He was no more or no less bad than most men in his position at the time and that includes Americans. The Germans in fact went that bit further in Africa and made the first concentration camps.

http://www.namibweb.com/ccamps.htm

Yeah, it's just that your original choice of example for comparison kinda sucked.

 

[Tez3]

Yeah, it's just that your original choice of example for comparison kinda sucked.

Well when someone is coming over the Brits are the nasty ones you didn't expect agreement? Rhodes was typical of his generation, when bringing land into the Empire and making money were encouraged. To be honest, better to be under the British than the Belgians or Germans that's for sure, the fact that after independence most countries choose to stay in the Commonwealth tells you were weren't that bad. No other colonising country has so many of it's ex colonies still on friendly terms with it, many of these countries even keep the Queen as head of state by choice with no pressure from us. They called a country after him, not the first time is it, who's America named after again? I don't actually see what Rhodes has to do with the OP either, it just seemed to be a random attack.

 

[Carol]

No. Colonization of Sierra Leone was established by the British, in 1787, and it remained a British protectorate until 1961. At the time of it's establishment, though, the indigenous populace was already decimated by disease and slavery-what remained was hostile, but, by the early 1800's, and the time of the attempts at colonization by more freed American slaves by the American Colonization Society, the colony was well established and the indigenous populace had been largely integrated. The colonization of Liberia was largely driven by the American Colonization Society, and, again, integrated the indigenous populace in a short amount of time-division of ethnic groups in present day Liberia is largely based on tribal lines from the time of colonization.

So, no, Carol, the comparison doesn't hold. As someone from that part of New England, you're probably aware that my great-great-great-great-great uncle, Paul Cuffee, and his older brother, my great-great-great-great-great grandfather, John Cuffee, supplied the ships for some of those early colonization efforts, laying the groundwork for the American Colonization Society. My family has property in Sierra Leone and Liberia-such as it is, and there are streets named after my ancestors in both countries-a few other places, too.......Shortly after my father died, I had to go to both places-we support a few people over there, and it's another family tradition that I have to follow. Places are pretty much ****holes, though. While personally anti-colonial for a few reasons, I can understand the intention behind these efforts, and find comparisons to Cecil Rhodes, a man whose name is synonymous with imperialism, who thought it was his divine duty to increase the domination of the British Empire, more a little offensive, and more than a little specious, at best.

Indeed, I was aware of your background....that's why I wanted to ask your opinion. Wasn't trying to be confrontational, you're more knowledgeable about this than I am.

 

[Carol]

EDIT: duplicate

 

[elder999]

Indeed, I was aware of your background....that's why I wanted to ask your opinion. Wasn't trying to be confrontational, you're more knowledgeable about this than I am.

No worries-I knew that you knew :lol:-it wasa rhetorical device for anyone else's benefit, and so Irene could see how she got my knickers in a twist :lfao:.

 

[Tez3]

No worries-I knew that you knew :lol:-it wasa rhetorical device for anyone else's benefit, and so Irene could see how she got my knickers in a twist :lfao:.

then you should go commando!