They call them “developing countries” because “countries struggling to recover from being ruthlessly pillaged and systematically destabilized” doesn’t have the same ring.
Facts also "3rd world" is just more elitist propaganda to reframe the situation into a developement, "IQ", situation. While destroying the countries because everyone demonizes and ignores them.
The terms 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries were first coined to describe countries that were on the side of the allies ( 1st world ), the axis ( 2nd world ) and non affiliated countries ( 3rd world ) during WW2.
Yeah, the phrases are outdated and don't make much sense now (although I think they're based on the Cold War more than the WWI, which saves Spain at least). Wikipedia has an interested map that shows, technically, what countries are first world, third world, etc. It's a little amusing to see countries like Zimbabwe or Namibia technically classified as First World countries, while Ireland and Sweden are not.
To be fair, the countries were aligned with each other pretty much the same in the Cold War as in WWII. I was always taught that First World was Capitalist countries (aligned with US), Second was Communist (aligned with USSR), and Third was.... the rest, basically.
Who are the ones who have done this? Please let me know because I grew up in Zimbabwe and I have first hand experience watching a country get flushed down the toilet.
The IMF, World Bank, whatever Central Bank they installed in your country, in cooperation with the oil, mineral, and other corporations interested in taking your resources.
You sooooo desperately want him to support your racist, authoritarian collectivist narrative. It's sickening. I just threw up in my mouth. And the worst part is people like you do this under the pretense that you're helping these people. You're taking advantage of them just like they are your little pet slaves. Meanwhile people who actually want to empower the third world with free markets are demonized, SAD!
That's just something people say because it's sort of true, sounds plausible. It's just not the actual story. And who actually cares? Not the twitter account and not you.
Cant believe all the downvotes for pointing out the facts. Oh its liberal reddit I remember and they think youre a whitey being racist. Your name looks Japanese and the self evident truth is Japanese, S Koreans, and Chinese are the lighter skinned and far more advanced of all the oriental nations. Coincidence? Did the evil white man make Chinese, S Koreans, and Japanese smarter, wealthier, and more culturally enriched than Filipinos and Vietnamese with the African slave trade? Progressive logic is hard to process. I guess the first step is to ignore reality and historical evidence.
Is it tho? I mean there are some countries out there that are just not developed at all and in fact haven't been pillaged by first world countries. Some countries are just unlucky in that their location sucks and their resources suck. So they are kinda SOL.
Most African nations. I'd say India as well despite having over a billion people. Like simply what is there in Kenya? It just is what it is and how the Earth was made.
I'm talking on a global scale tho dude like land ownership in Africa in this day and age is not in high demand. And agriculture can be done just about anywhere. So that wealth created sure can be good for local economies but on a global scale people aren't rushing to African land to snatch it up for the Agriculture or just because it creates wealth. There are just simply better areas to do that if you're trying to make money. Which is my whole point. On a global scale African areas are just not even close to as desirable as other areas on our earth.
What? I feel like you're just making things up. There has been a huge land grab going on in Africa by large agribusinesses for years. Chiba, Europe, the US, literally everyone wants African land. What are you even talking about?
You linked me an 8 year old article are you aware of that? If there is more recent articles about the land grab I'd love to read up on it. A lot has changed since 2009.
I don't even understand the point you're trying to make. First you say nobody wants African land and farm land is worthless. Then you say of course China and India want African land because they have billions of people to feed. Then you copy and paste a paragraph from the article I posted that supports the OP's argument even though it seemed like you were arguing against the OP the entire time. I can't even tell what you're trying to say at this point.
The quote I quoted was these African nations are not selling land to the people of their nation but instead selling it out to other countries. Thus in turn hurting the locals. OPs argument is that big nations raped the smaller ones and now are trying to rebuild. My point here is that these African countries are selling their land at the cost of their locals suffering. Hence the quite. "since the state often formally owns the land, the poor run the risk of being pushed off the plot in favor of the investor.." So is is the major country coming in and using power and leverage (like I talked about) to get the land or is it the small country's fault for selling themselves out?
I know but why does that happen? Because the people don't have any power or their country as a whole is susceptible to abuse. All that can be stopped with honest leaders who put the people first.
How am I changing the subject? This is what you said:
I know but why does that happen? Because the people don't have any power or their country as a whole is susceptible to abuse. All that can be stopped with honest leaders who put the people first.
Is your contention that this logic only applies to Africa? If so, why?
No my contention is that this entire conversation and post has been about 3rd world and developing countries. Which is quite the opposite of the United States.
Did I? We were discussing developing nations and then you decided to say something about the poor people not doing something about it. Then you brought up the United States. Idk where I switched arguments but I know you sure did. Have a good night.
I don't think I do at all. Its all about power and leverage and desirable goods. Kenya and other African nations have nothing. its fucking sand dude. They have nothing to leverage other nations over and have nothing to trade.
Sub-Saharan Africa has a lot of natural resources, the only thing holding them back is low average intelligence. The Arab countries got relatively powerful for a while and they had way less in resources than Sub-Saharan Africa.
And that argument doesn't apply at all for India which has a rich history spanning millenia.
More in regards to scientific and literary accomplishments, I don't think they were particularly powerful militarily. Unless you consider Persia an Arab country, which rivaled Greece in their zenith.
What example would you point to as an example of power, in pre-European colonization Africa? If there is an example to look into, I definitely want to know.
There were a few primitive kingdoms but nothing major. They have enough resources for a powerful empire to develop but unfortunately they never developed the intelligence to take advantage of it.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The resources appear to exist in Africa to make for advanced civilizations, but we don't see any such civilization having formed in the past, or currently.
After World War 2, Japan was ruthlessly destroyed and occupied by a military power that dictated its entire form of government to them. Germany was also ruthlessly pillaged and systematically destabilized, especially by the occupation by the Allied powers and the partitioning of the sectors. (i.e. "East Germany). There is no reason to call these countries "developing countries" and there is no correlation between "developing countries" and ruthless pillaging and systematic destabilization. All the major powers except Britain were ruthlessly pillaged and systematically destabilized in the last 250 years, and today, they are the great powers. These include US, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, France, and Germany. In fact, if you follow current news, there is a theory going along that one of these powers (Russia) is attempting to politically destabilize another one of these powers (United States). So, maybe thing about it this way... All countries have threats that attempt to pillage their resources and systematically destabilize them. The ones with robust political systems survive and thrive and the snowflake countries fail and blame the successful countries. But "developing countries" does sound better than "snowflake countries."
Well 3rd world is surely used in a despective way. A lot of our problems are caused by economic stagnation and even the places that are somewhat more advanced like Argentina and Chile aren't allowed to develop their own nationalism.
All of our problems could be solved easily if it wasn't for the elites influence.
It's crazy to think that a group of bankers decide the exchange rate between countries.
"Oh, you live in Rwanda? Well a day of your hard labour, toiling all day out in the sun is worth about as much as a cup of coffee in the developed world. It doesn't matter how much you can actually produce, it just matters that your value is less than that of developed nations."
It's honestly really fucked up if you think about it. Slavery exists now more than any other period in history, it is just economic slavery.
What many people don't know about Africa is that many Africa countries still pay "reparations" to France, largely in the form of debt (with interest) that France imposed on said Africa countries to compensate France for the improvements they made during their colonization. The French government has stated that they will never end this relationship with their ex-colonies as their economy would fail if they did. To get these African governments to agree to the obviously shit deal, the French used violent coercion in the form of assassination and extortion.
SO you don't think there is ANY possibility that these people simply weren't as good at organizing themselves? You don't think the people were accountable at all for their actions? Was it 100 percent white man and his capitalism's fault?
What about Venezuela who shit the bed recently? That was 100 percent outside influence?
What about native cultures that were living in tee pees and cannibalizing neighboring tribes before being assimilated?
Also, do you understand how AUTHORITARIAN interventionism and harmful international banking practices are different than free market libertarian capitalism?
Strange though that colonized countries in Africa still do better than those that weren't colonized. It's also interesting that he same folks who espouse the beliefs of this tweet might suggest the US was built on free labour. At the same time some places where labour is basically free - like Africa - are subterranean shitholes. Doesnt add up. Hows south africa doing in the last 20 years lol? What's also interesting is that former Asian colonies seem to be doing better than former African colonies. Curious. Were they less ruthlessly pillaged? I don't see any tweets about that. Africas hope now is china coming in and turning it into a farm. Hell if left alone in 1000 years Africa will still be a shithole. At what point can a people just cope with he fact that in zero percent of the world they're successful. Like seriously. When left to their own devices where are they successful? Even with resources and a workforce. Nowhere. Zero places. Oddly china crawled out of the stone age with cheap labour and are modernizing at a rapid pace. Strange. How's Africa doing competitively? Digging up corpses to dance with them and getting the black plague. Hunting albinos. Both obvious follies colonialists brought. Traditions in Europe.
The routes of early roads and trains were set up with radians to the interior of countries to the coasts, not to facilitate connections of their cities or people or to improve native indigenous communities, it was just one big conveyor belt to get anything of value to the ports.
Since these were set up, and the capitalist system mimicked in attempt to be like the west but to do that they trade away rights to the world bank and governments...It results in the same rape of the countries wealth as it did back then.
I don't even understand the point you're trying to make. First you say nobody wants African land and farm land is worthless. Then you say of course China and India want African land because they have billions of people to feed. Then you copy and paste a paragraph from the article I posted that supports the OP's argument even though it seemed like you were arguing against the OP the entire time. I can't even tell what you're trying to say at this point.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The resources appear to exist in Africa to make for advanced civilizations, but we don't see any such civilization having formed in the past, or currently.
83 comments
1 padubenay 2018-01-07
Another euphemism down the drain.
1 IndigoMD 2018-01-07
Facts also "3rd world" is just more elitist propaganda to reframe the situation into a developement, "IQ", situation. While destroying the countries because everyone demonizes and ignores them.
1 Cunty_Balls 2018-01-07
The terms 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries were first coined to describe countries that were on the side of the allies ( 1st world ), the axis ( 2nd world ) and non affiliated countries ( 3rd world ) during WW2.
1 IndigoMD 2018-01-07
Sadly that's not how the world sees it and there seems to be an either first or third no second in the minds of the masses
1 canitbe73 2018-01-07
Yeah, the phrases are outdated and don't make much sense now (although I think they're based on the Cold War more than the WWI, which saves Spain at least). Wikipedia has an interested map that shows, technically, what countries are first world, third world, etc. It's a little amusing to see countries like Zimbabwe or Namibia technically classified as First World countries, while Ireland and Sweden are not.
1 Cunty_Balls 2018-01-07
Yeah, you're right. It was the cold war, not WW2.
1 canitbe73 2018-01-07
To be fair, the countries were aligned with each other pretty much the same in the Cold War as in WWII. I was always taught that First World was Capitalist countries (aligned with US), Second was Communist (aligned with USSR), and Third was.... the rest, basically.
1 ehll_oh_ehll 2018-01-07
/r/badhistory
1 Cunty_Balls 2018-01-07
Oh no, I got the war. What a catastrophe. How will we ever cope?
1 memnactor 2018-01-07
Denmark joined NATO at its inception in 1949. You might be thinking of Sweden.
1 aultumn 2018-01-07
I thought they were 3rd world countries due to their high natural resources which gave them independence from either of the Cold War superpowers
1 Ls2323 2018-01-07
Denmark is 1st world. Maybe you're thinking of Sweden?
1 RaysOnPinion 2018-01-07
You have been made a moderator in /r/latestagecapitalism
1 sHaDowpUpPetxxx 2018-01-07
Like when your parents friends ask "what are you doing now? " and you say "I have several things in development."
1 canitbe73 2018-01-07
Good thought, except I wouldn't have made it past tense.
1 gruener_lucas 2018-01-07
Yea, a lot of people don't realize that the success of the "first world" countries relies on the disgrace of the "third world" ones
1 Outofmany 2018-01-07
Who are the ones who have done this? Please let me know because I grew up in Zimbabwe and I have first hand experience watching a country get flushed down the toilet.
1 AnusJuteux 2018-01-07
Who did it from your point of view? Honest question.
1 armchairdictator 2018-01-07
Mugabe
1 no1113 2018-01-07
And who funded and supported him? /u/caitdrum provides some information for you.
1 armchairdictator 2018-01-07
Order yourself a taxi m8
1 no1113 2018-01-07
I'm sure coming back with that made you feel better about yourself.
1 caitdrum 2018-01-07
The IMF, World Bank, whatever Central Bank they installed in your country, in cooperation with the oil, mineral, and other corporations interested in taking your resources.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-01-07
This. Globalist banksters raped your country my friend. They're raping ours currently.
1 f4gg07_L13S 2018-01-07
How about letting him respond first before making TELLING him what happened to HIS country?
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-01-07
Because it's the internet and I can do what I want. Don't know what else to tell you, lol.
1 f4gg07_L13S 2018-01-07
You sooooo desperately want him to support your racist, authoritarian collectivist narrative. It's sickening. I just threw up in my mouth. And the worst part is people like you do this under the pretense that you're helping these people. You're taking advantage of them just like they are your little pet slaves. Meanwhile people who actually want to empower the third world with free markets are demonized, SAD!
1 WaitTilUSeeMyDick 2018-01-07
Fuck off troll. Poor form. 2/10
1 Outofmany 2018-01-07
That's just something people say because it's sort of true, sounds plausible. It's just not the actual story. And who actually cares? Not the twitter account and not you.
1 Retromind 2018-01-07
Soviets, Nazies
1 Takakazu_Kinashi 2018-01-07
Racially dark countries are poor and horrible because the people there are racially inferior.
1 iemploreyou 2018-01-07
Who hurt you?
1 blhollandjr123 2018-01-07
Some dark person who beat his ass..
1 alltargetsgreen 2018-01-07
Cant believe all the downvotes for pointing out the facts. Oh its liberal reddit I remember and they think youre a whitey being racist. Your name looks Japanese and the self evident truth is Japanese, S Koreans, and Chinese are the lighter skinned and far more advanced of all the oriental nations. Coincidence? Did the evil white man make Chinese, S Koreans, and Japanese smarter, wealthier, and more culturally enriched than Filipinos and Vietnamese with the African slave trade? Progressive logic is hard to process. I guess the first step is to ignore reality and historical evidence.
1 iemploreyou 2018-01-07
Thanks, ruthless capitalism!
1 theRealZoosman 2018-01-07
Not exactly conspiracy, just a tried and tested marketing technique
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
Is it tho? I mean there are some countries out there that are just not developed at all and in fact haven't been pillaged by first world countries. Some countries are just unlucky in that their location sucks and their resources suck. So they are kinda SOL.
1 famnf 2018-01-07
What are some examples?
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
Most African nations. I'd say India as well despite having over a billion people. Like simply what is there in Kenya? It just is what it is and how the Earth was made.
1 famnf 2018-01-07
Here's some reading for you on Kenya:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising
Here's some reading on India:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
1 HelperBot_ 2018-01-07
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 135575
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
India perhaps wasn't the greatest example but if Kenya's big sell is good agricultural ground then idk what to tell you.
1 famnf 2018-01-07
Well if you don't think there's money in agriculture and don't see how land ownership contributes to wealth then I don't know what to tell you.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
I'm talking on a global scale tho dude like land ownership in Africa in this day and age is not in high demand. And agriculture can be done just about anywhere. So that wealth created sure can be good for local economies but on a global scale people aren't rushing to African land to snatch it up for the Agriculture or just because it creates wealth. There are just simply better areas to do that if you're trying to make money. Which is my whole point. On a global scale African areas are just not even close to as desirable as other areas on our earth.
1 famnf 2018-01-07
What? I feel like you're just making things up. There has been a huge land grab going on in Africa by large agribusinesses for years. Chiba, Europe, the US, literally everyone wants African land. What are you even talking about?
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/03/africa-land-grab
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
You linked me an 8 year old article are you aware of that? If there is more recent articles about the land grab I'd love to read up on it. A lot has changed since 2009.
1 famnf 2018-01-07
I don't even understand the point you're trying to make. First you say nobody wants African land and farm land is worthless. Then you say of course China and India want African land because they have billions of people to feed. Then you copy and paste a paragraph from the article I posted that supports the OP's argument even though it seemed like you were arguing against the OP the entire time. I can't even tell what you're trying to say at this point.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
The quote I quoted was these African nations are not selling land to the people of their nation but instead selling it out to other countries. Thus in turn hurting the locals. OPs argument is that big nations raped the smaller ones and now are trying to rebuild. My point here is that these African countries are selling their land at the cost of their locals suffering. Hence the quite. "since the state often formally owns the land, the poor run the risk of being pushed off the plot in favor of the investor.." So is is the major country coming in and using power and leverage (like I talked about) to get the land or is it the small country's fault for selling themselves out?
1 famnf 2018-01-07
The way it works is that moneyed interests put leaders in power who do their bidding. They leaders who are bought and paid for sell out the people.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
I know but why does that happen? Because the people don't have any power or their country as a whole is susceptible to abuse. All that can be stopped with honest leaders who put the people first.
1 famnf 2018-01-07
Hmm. I wonder why poor people in every country don't just get on board with that.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
I'm talking to those who aren't poor. The ones that get put in power aren't just random people or pheasants plucked off the streets..
1 famnf 2018-01-07
I wonder why the middle class in this country don't just get on board with it.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
And we're now changing the subject :)
1 famnf 2018-01-07
How am I changing the subject? This is what you said:
Is your contention that this logic only applies to Africa? If so, why?
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
No my contention is that this entire conversation and post has been about 3rd world and developing countries. Which is quite the opposite of the United States.
1 famnf 2018-01-07
Ok. I think your logic is flawed. You also don't seem to know much about the countries you're discussing so I'll just agree to disagree.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-01-07
You just switched arguments from nation-specific, to global, and back to nation-specific when it suited you.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
Did I? We were discussing developing nations and then you decided to say something about the poor people not doing something about it. Then you brought up the United States. Idk where I switched arguments but I know you sure did. Have a good night.
1 RagingSatyr 2018-01-07
India used to be pretty powerful before the Brits fucked them and the Scramble for Africa fucked Africa really bad.
I think you need to brush up on your history.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
I don't think I do at all. Its all about power and leverage and desirable goods. Kenya and other African nations have nothing. its fucking sand dude. They have nothing to leverage other nations over and have nothing to trade.
1 RagingSatyr 2018-01-07
Sub-Saharan Africa has a lot of natural resources, the only thing holding them back is low average intelligence. The Arab countries got relatively powerful for a while and they had way less in resources than Sub-Saharan Africa.
And that argument doesn't apply at all for India which has a rich history spanning millenia.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
Yeah I said in a different comment that the India example probably wasn't the smartest one to pick. Apologies
1 RagingSatyr 2018-01-07
More in regards to scientific and literary accomplishments, I don't think they were particularly powerful militarily. Unless you consider Persia an Arab country, which rivaled Greece in their zenith.
1 RooLoL 2018-01-07
Why has that fallen off then? Why aren't they still doing that? Just genuinely curious if you don't know I'd understand.
1 RagingSatyr 2018-01-07
This guy on Quora summarizes it better than I could
1 Rubulisk 2018-01-07
What example would you point to as an example of power, in pre-European colonization Africa? If there is an example to look into, I definitely want to know.
1 RagingSatyr 2018-01-07
There were a few primitive kingdoms but nothing major. They have enough resources for a powerful empire to develop but unfortunately they never developed the intelligence to take advantage of it.
1 Rubulisk 2018-01-07
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The resources appear to exist in Africa to make for advanced civilizations, but we don't see any such civilization having formed in the past, or currently.
1 Ls2323 2018-01-07
Africa has HUGE resources beeing pillaged on a daily basis. Not so much oil, more minerals etc.
1 samsng2 2018-01-07
What about Asian colonies ?
1 aultumn 2018-01-07
/r/showerthoughts
1 Poor_joe 2018-01-07
After World War 2, Japan was ruthlessly destroyed and occupied by a military power that dictated its entire form of government to them. Germany was also ruthlessly pillaged and systematically destabilized, especially by the occupation by the Allied powers and the partitioning of the sectors. (i.e. "East Germany). There is no reason to call these countries "developing countries" and there is no correlation between "developing countries" and ruthless pillaging and systematic destabilization. All the major powers except Britain were ruthlessly pillaged and systematically destabilized in the last 250 years, and today, they are the great powers. These include US, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, France, and Germany. In fact, if you follow current news, there is a theory going along that one of these powers (Russia) is attempting to politically destabilize another one of these powers (United States). So, maybe thing about it this way... All countries have threats that attempt to pillage their resources and systematically destabilize them. The ones with robust political systems survive and thrive and the snowflake countries fail and blame the successful countries. But "developing countries" does sound better than "snowflake countries."
1 olvie_999 2018-01-07
i.e. the capitalist countries the proud capitalists never mention when they shout how great capitalism is
1 HibikiSS 2018-01-07
Well 3rd world is surely used in a despective way. A lot of our problems are caused by economic stagnation and even the places that are somewhat more advanced like Argentina and Chile aren't allowed to develop their own nationalism.
All of our problems could be solved easily if it wasn't for the elites influence.
1 caitdrum 2018-01-07
It's crazy to think that a group of bankers decide the exchange rate between countries.
"Oh, you live in Rwanda? Well a day of your hard labour, toiling all day out in the sun is worth about as much as a cup of coffee in the developed world. It doesn't matter how much you can actually produce, it just matters that your value is less than that of developed nations."
It's honestly really fucked up if you think about it. Slavery exists now more than any other period in history, it is just economic slavery.
1 sinedup4thiscomment 2018-01-07
What many people don't know about Africa is that many Africa countries still pay "reparations" to France, largely in the form of debt (with interest) that France imposed on said Africa countries to compensate France for the improvements they made during their colonization. The French government has stated that they will never end this relationship with their ex-colonies as their economy would fail if they did. To get these African governments to agree to the obviously shit deal, the French used violent coercion in the form of assassination and extortion.
See here for some basic information on the matter.
1 temporaldimension 2018-01-07
Well if it wasn't a s******* country to begin with then wouldn't be able to be pillaged....
1 f4gg07_L13S 2018-01-07
SO you don't think there is ANY possibility that these people simply weren't as good at organizing themselves? You don't think the people were accountable at all for their actions? Was it 100 percent white man and his capitalism's fault?
What about Venezuela who shit the bed recently? That was 100 percent outside influence?
What about native cultures that were living in tee pees and cannibalizing neighboring tribes before being assimilated?
Also, do you understand how AUTHORITARIAN interventionism and harmful international banking practices are different than free market libertarian capitalism?
1 Dhylan 2018-01-07
World Bank and International Monetary Fund each have a nice ring to it, too, don'cha think?
1 _thattguy_ 2018-01-07
Another shill non-conspiracy thread making it to the top of conspiracy.
1 DickyAvalon 2018-01-07
Strange though that colonized countries in Africa still do better than those that weren't colonized. It's also interesting that he same folks who espouse the beliefs of this tweet might suggest the US was built on free labour. At the same time some places where labour is basically free - like Africa - are subterranean shitholes. Doesnt add up. Hows south africa doing in the last 20 years lol? What's also interesting is that former Asian colonies seem to be doing better than former African colonies. Curious. Were they less ruthlessly pillaged? I don't see any tweets about that. Africas hope now is china coming in and turning it into a farm. Hell if left alone in 1000 years Africa will still be a shithole. At what point can a people just cope with he fact that in zero percent of the world they're successful. Like seriously. When left to their own devices where are they successful? Even with resources and a workforce. Nowhere. Zero places. Oddly china crawled out of the stone age with cheap labour and are modernizing at a rapid pace. Strange. How's Africa doing competitively? Digging up corpses to dance with them and getting the black plague. Hunting albinos. Both obvious follies colonialists brought. Traditions in Europe.
1 Aye_or_Nay 2018-01-07
Yes, and embarrassingly, it is a very long list...
The ebb and flow of CIA meddling.
1 tormentvector 2018-01-07
The routes of early roads and trains were set up with radians to the interior of countries to the coasts, not to facilitate connections of their cities or people or to improve native indigenous communities, it was just one big conveyor belt to get anything of value to the ports.
Since these were set up, and the capitalist system mimicked in attempt to be like the west but to do that they trade away rights to the world bank and governments...It results in the same rape of the countries wealth as it did back then.
1 Cunty_Balls 2018-01-07
Yeah, you're right. It was the cold war, not WW2.
1 RagingSatyr 2018-01-07
This guy on Quora summarizes it better than I could
1 famnf 2018-01-07
I don't even understand the point you're trying to make. First you say nobody wants African land and farm land is worthless. Then you say of course China and India want African land because they have billions of people to feed. Then you copy and paste a paragraph from the article I posted that supports the OP's argument even though it seemed like you were arguing against the OP the entire time. I can't even tell what you're trying to say at this point.
1 Rubulisk 2018-01-07
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The resources appear to exist in Africa to make for advanced civilizations, but we don't see any such civilization having formed in the past, or currently.