Sub-Saharan Africa: They're Conflict Minerals, Marie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Sub-Saharan Africa: They're Conflict Minerals, Marie

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

What's Sudan's role in all of this? I can't imagine them staying completely on the sidelines.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2015 23:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 10:15

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

kustomkarkommando posted:

Rwanda under Paul Kagame has increasingly become something of a concern. Their support for the Congolese rebel group M23 and their occasional exchanges of fire with the Congolese military have demonstrated that they are not afraid to flex their military muscles even if it means Western condemnation. Their rather public assassinatin campaign targetting former members of Kagame's inner circle abroad has been rather hard to sweep under the carpet for Western government's who intialy weclomed Kagame when he assumed power following the Rwandan genocide. With Burundi teetering on the brink of a political crisis there are worries Kagame will step into the fray to restore order and prevent a flare up of Tutsi-Hutu violence that could spill into Rwanda.

Kagame's also working towards extending the allowed terms in office, isn't he? He's still pretending that's not what he's interested in, but party's pushing 'spontaneous' petitions to call for a constitutional change. Unsurprisingly considering Rwanda's political climate, they're ostensibly getting massive amounts of support - so it looks like it's a forgone conclusion. The main difference with Burundi being that the West isn't making as much of a fuss about Rwanda as it is about Burundi. A pretty prominent Africa commentator in Belgium raised this point in an op-ed piece this morning, but couldn't really find a reason for the difference in approach towards both countries. Personally, I feel like the donor countries are still very wary about getting involved in Rwandan politics, still having the genocide on their minds. It's easier to just let Rwanda be than to possibly gently caress something up.

Also because the donor countries are all cynical bastards, but that's a given.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2015 13:43

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Can't see all of this going particularly well for Nkurunziza unless he plans on going full-hog dictator. Which would end up just as bad, really.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 17:23

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

blowfish posted:

His statue should remain until it rots from bird poo poo and acid rain, much like statues of other historical oppressors.

why

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 23:32

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

blowfish posted:

Because it's part of that place's history, even if it's not from a glorious part of that history. Erasing all the reminders of the unpleasant parts just makes it easier to forget your country's history isn't all good, instead you should educate people more comprehensively.

Note that eventually, it may also become significant as a relic of a period of world history, in which case it should be preserved as an artifact for all mankind and go into a museum.

That's not how history works. Remembrance of a country's sordid past is wholly unrelated to the amount of statues it keeps up of its genocidal maniacs. The idea that everything from the past is worth preserving is outdated as hell, anyway. A statue of a bloodthirsty monster made in the early 20th century isn't History with a capital h. Its historical value is extremely limited. The most interesting role it will ever play is, ironically, as a barometer for how long society is willing to keep statues of the monsters of its past standing. And guess what: that barometer is starting to edge towards 'it's time to start chopping'

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 00:06

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Foreign reporters are being deported from the DRC and social media is getting blocked. Sunday'll be interesting.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2016 23:44

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Sad Panda posted:

Isn't a moron and is by far not the worst thing. One farmer told me not to go along the wild coast as the people there are barely out of their caves. That seems worse.

It's not a word he uses now. I was asking him why Afrikaans speakers seem to think that using the word baboon is acceptable when describing Zuma and he explained the translation and that at least now it is used irrespective of race. I made the point that while that might be the case it probably came about to describe blacks and he claimed that as a kid in KZN 50-60 years ago that he'd use it to describe his white friends. He said that it wasn't until a couple of years ago that he had that understanding of it being racist.

Calling people morons and racists however is a wonderful way to shut down discussion and them telling me stories.

Whoever told you that is both a moron and a racist. He also smells bad, has a microdong and a flabby butt.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 12:26

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Man's 93. Someone had to fire first, I guess.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2017 16:48

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Grouchio posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llP1o4AB0AM&t=256s
Well okay then.

Don't post white genocide youtube channels.

Saladman posted:

Julius Malema seems like one of a very few people where the politics in a country would likely be better if he were disappeared.

Don't post... anything anymore, really. Christ.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2018 18:41

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Jannie Kleinboer is a much easier rhetorical target than Big Agriculture, anyway. Much less dangerous too.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2018 21:51

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

awesmoe posted:

well you're minimizing and excusing violent rhetoric from a political leader directed at a political group because you think they deserve it and that it's funny. You don't really deserve much more of a response than that.

He's contextualising that rhetoric and explaining that it only appears violent to white people who only hear it in its decontextualised form, you dink.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2018 22:28

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Blut posted:

SA needs politicians who will focus on reducing the gaps between the wealthy and the poor - regardless of the races involved. Rich people of all races should pay more tax, poor people of all races should get more assistance. Inflammatory racial rhetoric just serves to distract from the economic issues, even aside from the moral and criminal issues it may raise.

It's kind of hard, if not impossible, to separate race and class in South Africa of all places.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2018 22:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 10:15

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Blut posted:

No, its really not. Almost 25% of South Africa has a "stable middle class or above" income. The white population of SA is 9%. That means there are far more black and coloured people of middle and upper income than white people these days, quantitatively.

The main reason there hasn't been any major economic evolution in South Africa since 1995 is because enough of a black and coloured middle and upper class has emerged to have an interest in defending the economic status quo. If the only upper class people were white they would have had far less lasting power.

I'm not saying that wealth is strictly divided along racial lines. I'm saying that, politically, it's impossible to focus on class without also addressing race simultaneously. To do so is not only detached from reality, it's also political suicide.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2018 23:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Sub-Saharan Africa: They're Conflict Minerals, Marie