How Africa is being exploited by banking élites. How US Democrats are on the wrong side.

[TagliatelliMonster]

The resolutions mention a whole lot of valid reasons, many ironic ones actually, such as interference in international affairs and violation of human rights which the us supports or does, international terrorism which is subjective and expulsion of minorities. But considering that they dont charge america for either committing or supporting similar things is telling. Such as what is happening in Israel and Palestine.

But you acknowledge the resolution does not concern anything that @Estro Felino is claiming, right?
You also acknowledge the military intervention was only mandated based on that resolution, right?

Assuming yes, how then is it remotely correct to say that gaddafi got killed for the reasons claimed by @Estro Felino ?
Do you think this intervention would have occurred if gaddafi did NOT engage in warcrimes, did NOT engage in crimes against humanity?
If yes, on what basis? What would the mandate have been about?

I think i might be confusing crimes against humanity with not respecting human rights but the lines are blurred because warcrimes are included.

Looking at your examples, quite a few of them indeed confuse one with the other.
Some examples are valid.

But, just because in some cases people get away with it or "get protected" by certain veto-powers, that doesn't take away anything from the instances where that isn't the case.

As for Israel, I don't think there is another country which as more resolutions against it then they do....
It just so happens that the US indeed veto's any and all resolutions against Israel almost by default. And it is absolutely a disgrace, I agree.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that France alone gets to decide which resolutions pass and which don't, or what they say?
It matters not what *other* motives or desires they have. They still need to convince all the others to vote.

And no matter what *other* motives or desires they had, these weren't put into the text.





Great. Now quote from the actual UN resolution which actually mandated the military intervention. Because none of this did.........



Did I?
Please quote me where I have said any such thing or even insinuated or implied it.....

Seems to me is that all I said was that the military intervention (resulting in Gaddafi's death) wasn't mandated by any of this stuff, but only by what the UN resolution actually said.

If Gaddafi wouldn't have engaged in his crimes against humanity, no resolution would have been voted and thus no military intervention would have been mandated.

Remember my store analogy?
If that hypothetical store wouldn't engaged in massive fraud, courts wouldn't have shut it down.
My desire and wish to have it shut down is irrelevant in the causal sense.

It is also irrelevant if I were the one to have turned the store in, the wistleblower, for the fraud.
It sure would have been convenient for me... but you can hardly blame it on me (or my wishes and desires). The store is to blame for the massive fraud it committed and that, and only that, is what led to it being shut down.

Same with Gaddafi. The resolution deals with warcrimes / crimes against humanity. It does not deal with whatever thing that annoys the french.



I didn't expect otherwise. I don't think there is anything we can say or show you that will ever convince you that you are wrong. You are too far gone in conspiracy theories and propaganda. You probably even believe that everyone in the security council was "in on it" and that while the resolution speaks of warcrimes and crimes against humanity, really it was all really about appeasing the french.

This is your MO.
When facts contradict your beliefs, you assume the facts are wrong.

The resolution that mandated the military intervention, doesn't.

The fact that the UN never punished the USA for its war crimes, it means that they are less credible than a compulsive liar.
They are so partial and biased.
So I couldn't care less about the UN resolution.

Did you get a law degree in Italy, by chance?
No...you didn't. I did.

They would not. There would be no reason to. No crime was committed.

In Italy it's civilly relevant. You know...there is a big difference between civil courts and penal courts in Italy.
So yes...you will be sued by the first shopkeeper.
In Italy if you are called to testify, that is as a witness, you cannot plead the fifth, so the attorneys of the first shopkeeper will likely destroy you in court.
Because as soon as you refuse to answer (as you usually do), the judge will convict you for reticent testimony.

That email will be brought in court and the onus is on you...to demonstrate that you did nothing to do with the "charge of fraud" the first shopkeeper is being convicted with.


And by the way...your example is not really equivalent to the case. If you denounced the fraud...then it's perfect.

Because the one who had the idea to bomb Libya was FRANCE. So...France has to explain that they didn't do to save their legalized usury in Africa.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Isn't it more a case of 'the man that pays the piper calls the tune' ?
..and of course, past colonialism leaves a 'nasty taste in the mouth'.

..better not to be a pawn in either superpowers agenda, if it can be avoided.
It's always b****y money!

..and these days, it's mainly a manipulation of electronic digital currency through 'monetary policy'.
The idea of 'money markets' is morally bankrupt .. money should be a medium of exchange, and
not a commodity.

A moral financial system, would not employ usury to put the majority of wealth in the hands of a few.
That's not communism .. that's the guidance of G-d.

Yes it is the man that pays the piper calls the tune. Russia and China don't help Africa out of altruism. It could be to destroy western domination. But then they will become enemies.

That is why I say, Africa should be isolationist.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No, you answered well. You have your POW and I have mine.

Well, for the agenda, just search for opening threads by the OP poster as I am not allowed to link to them.
And for clarity, my bias is that I am Danish and support Ukraine and am a former professional soldier from the Cold War.
And, even Denmark has a colonial past or even present day colonies.

Will search those threads.

I can imagine why you aren't so Russia friendly. And you wouldn't be wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact that the UN never punished the USA for its war crimes, it means that they are less credible than a compulsive liar.
They are so partial and biased.
So I couldn't care less about the UN resolution.

Ow look... how surprising.... another round of "what-about-ism" while completely ignoring / dodging every point made in the quote you are responding to.

Did you get a law degree in Italy, by chance?
No...you didn't. I did.

Just some common sense is enough.

In Italy it's civilly relevant. You know...there is a big difference between civil courts and penal courts in Italy.
So yes...you will be sued by the first shopkeeper.

Sued for what, exactly?

In Italy if you are called to testify, that is as a witness, you cannot plead the fifth, so the attorneys of the first shopkeeper will likely destroy you in court.

For what?
Is me not liking the competition relevant to the crime of the competition of engaging in massive fraud?

Because as soon as you refuse to answer (as you usually do), the judge will convict you for reticent testimony.
That email will be brought in court and the onus is on you...to demonstrate that you did nothing to do with the "charge of fraud" the first shopkeeper is being convicted with.

Why would it matter if I have something to do with the charge or not? It's the shopkeeper that committed the fraud. If I found out about it and told the authorities, why would that put me in legal problems?
If anything, I'll even get a reward for reporting a massive fraudulent business..............................

Are you sure you aren't confusing legal courts with la cosa nostra? I understand la cosa nostra goes after snitches and tries to hurt them.
Courts in general kind of like snitches.

And by the way...your example is not really equivalent to the case

It absolutely is.

The fraud of the shop is analogous to Gaddafi's warcrimes / crimes against humanity.
Me having my own shop and not liking the competition / wishing to gone is analogous to france not liking gaddafi / wishing him gone.

That the shop is caught in fraud is simply convenient for me. And if I knew about the fraud, you may be sure as hell that I will be VERY HAPPY to expose it to the relevant authorities. It plays right into my wish, after all. The shop essentially eliminated itself by engaging in that illegal activity. Sucks to be them and lucky for me.

How is this any different?

Why would you blame that on me? You could also say to the shop "you shouldn't have engaged in fraud".

If you denounced the fraud...then it's perfect.
Because the one who had the idea to bomb Libya was FRANCE. So...France has to explain that they didn't do to save their legalized usury in Africa.

Not just France. The resolution was drafted and submitted by France, Lebanon and the UK. And then subsequently voted by a whole bunch of other countries. And the resolution didn't mention any "legalized usury". So why would it have to explain anything?

May I suggest you something? Never go to Italy...because you have this very bad habit not to answer questions.

Yeah, I will probably not fair well in Cosa Nostra, which seems to be your idea of the court of law.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ow look... how surprising.... another round of "what-about-ism" while completely ignoring / dodging every point made in the quote you are responding to.





Just some common sense is enough.




Sued for what, exactly?




For what?
Is me not liking the competition relevant to the crime of the competition of engaging in massive fraud?



Why would it matter if I have something to do with the charge or not? It's the shopkeeper that committed the fraud. If I found out about it and told the authorities, why would that put me in legal problems?
If anything, I'll even get a reward for reporting a massive fraudulent business..............................

Are you sure you aren't confusing legal courts with la cosa nostra? I understand la cosa nostra goes after snitches and tries to hurt them.
Courts in general kind of like snitches.



It absolutely is.

The fraud of the shop is analogous to Gaddafi's warcrimes / crimes against humanity.
Me having my own shop and not liking the competition / wishing to gone is analogous to france not liking gaddafi / wishing him gone.

That the shop is caught in fraud is simply convenient for me. And if I knew about the fraud, you may be sure as hell that I will be VERY HAPPY to expose it to the relevant authorities. It plays right into my wish, after all. The shop essentially eliminated itself by engaging in that illegal activity. Sucks to be them and lucky for me.

How is this any different?

Why would you blame that on me? You could also say to the shop "you shouldn't have engaged in fraud".



Not just France. The resolution was drafted and submitted by France, Lebanon and the UK. And then subsequently voted by a whole bunch of other countries. And the resolution didn't mention any "legalized usury". So why would it have to explain anything?



Yeah, I will probably not fair well in Cosa Nostra, which seems to be your idea of the court of law.

I am tired of answering.
The other members understood me perfectly.
You are just gaslighting me.

May I ask you something?
Are you a member of the banking élites by chance?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, now the poster of the OP is a Russia apologist and will only attack the non-authoritarian elements in the Western World including Russia to further her agenda.

Germany is non-authoritarian and I never attack it, dear.

So in all fairness, yes, the West including Russia are not always the good guys.

Today I am going to the Church to thank the Madonna...
it's a miracle. You admitted that the West are not always the good guys.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But you acknowledge the resolution does not concern anything that @Estro Felino is claiming, right?
You also acknowledge the military intervention was only mandated based on that resolution, right?

Assuming yes, how then is it remotely correct to say that gaddafi got killed for the reasons claimed by @Estro Felino ?
Do you think this intervention would have occurred if gaddafi did NOT engage in warcrimes, did NOT engage in crimes against humanity?
If yes, on what basis? What would the mandate have been about?



Looking at your examples, quite a few of them indeed confuse one with the other.
Some examples are valid.

But, just because in some cases people get away with it or "get protected" by certain veto-powers, that doesn't take away anything from the instances where that isn't the case.

As for Israel, I don't think there is another country which as more resolutions against it then they do....
It just so happens that the US indeed veto's any and all resolutions against Israel almost by default. And it is absolutely a disgrace, I agree.

So I think that intervention by Western nations in general isn't based on altruism. Their is almost always something political and economic to be gained. It explains why there are inconsistencies in where intervention gets executed.

So the resolution gives a reason for why they intervened but the question is, is that the real reason? And having spoken to Libyans myself, they have said that they loved Gadaffi and that his death caused immense destabilisation to the reason. The way to check whether the west gained something from Gaddaffi being killed is what resources and position they gained out of Libya being destabilized.

I believe that even if Gaddaffi didnt commit these crimes, he would have been killed. The west were involved in the deaths of Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara, and the CIA were involved in Mandelas arrest, so they have eliminated people who just wanted to bring their country right, so they have done so with less reason. Gadaffis intervention being a result of UN resolution is a point on your side though because I give it more credit than an individual country intervening in secret. If the UN didnt give the go ahead the CIA would have gotten rid of him. The motivation would have been because he was funding freedom fighters/ terrorists, such as the ANC who Mandela was a part of. IMO

Now, in Africa Gadaffi is glorified as if he was a saint. There is this idea that he didnt commit war crimes but only had good intentions for Africa, and he was set up. The same people paint Russia as a saint. People wish he was still alive and that we destroy the west with Russias help. Their ideas are very utopian, which is very much ahistorical and very ideological.

In reality things arent black and white. Countries do good and bad. Power in general should be kept in check because power corrupts absolutely.

The USA's protection of Israel is why I don't trust the wests moral grandstanding and the reasons they say they do things. But other countries, like mine, do the same so by no means am I villainising the west at the exclusion of villainising every other nation.

 

[Stevicus]

Regarding the global socialist government you propose, how susceptible do you think it could be to corruption? What would prevent it from getting out of control? I know there are many different versions of socialism which is why i ask. I would think that the problem this type of government would fall into is that it opposes tribal and cultural autonomy, which is the problem with colonialism and creating arbitrary countries in Africa disregarding tribal cultures.

One thing that seems evident is that power is maintained by those at the top by keeping people divided and against each other. It's the old "divide and conquer" method which has been around forever. My view is more focused on economic and geopolitical unity where all citizens would have equal rights, and human rights would be paramount.

Tribal and cultural autonomy can still exist within such a global construct. I see no practical reason why a global socialist government would need to oppose that, as long as everyone can relate to each other as equals in good faith. I believe that economic and political equality can override cultural and tribal differences. As long as all groups are equal and no group has any power over another, the differences won't mean much of anything.

As for corruption, I've observed that one of the key enablers of corruption is that there are too many countries, too many jurisdictions, and too many safe havens for the corrupt to hide themselves and their money. If all countries and territories of the world were under a single government, there would be no safe havens, no "islands of convenience."

 

[Estro Felino]

One thing that seems evident is that power is maintained by those at the top by keeping people divided and against each other. It's the old "divide and conquer" method which has been around forever. My view is more focused on economic and geopolitical unity where all citizens would have equal rights, and human rights would be paramount.

Tribal and cultural autonomy can still exist within such a global construct. I see no practical reason why a global socialist government would need to oppose that, as long as everyone can relate to each other as equals in good faith. I believe that economic and political equality can override cultural and tribal differences. As long as all groups are equal and no group has any power over another, the differences won't mean much of anything.

As for corruption, I've observed that one of the key enablers of corruption is that there are too many countries, too many jurisdictions, and too many safe havens for the corrupt to hide themselves and their money. If all countries and territories of the world were under a single government, there would be no safe havens, no "islands of convenience."

I am a very pragmatic person who loves reasoning.
I just said that that email says in the clearest way possible that the French don't want Gaddafi to create a new currency supposed to replace the CFA Franc...and that is why France is supporting the Libyan rebels.

In 2011...France bombs Libya and Gaddafi is murdered so the danger of this "new currency" is thwarted.

I think that any rational and honest person can put two and two together.

 

[Stevicus]

I am a very pragmatic person who loves reasoning.
I just said that that email says in the clearest way possible that the French don't want Gaddafi to create a new currency supposed to replace the CFA Franc...and that is why France is supporting the Libyan rebels.

In 2011...France bombs Libya and Gaddafi is murdered so the danger of this "new currency" is thwarted.

I think that any rational and honest person can put two and two together.

Oh, I would not doubt the crooked business which appears to go on behind the scenes. It's obvious that our governments are lying through their teeth when they speak of all their noble and high-minded ideals (which they claim motivate their actions).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Germany is non-authoritarian and I never attack it, dear.

Today I am going to the Church to thank the Madonna...
it's a miracle. You admitted that the West are not always the good guys.

Can you admit that Russia and Putin are not always the good guys?

 

[Estro Felino]

Can you admit that Russia and Putin are not always the good guys?

Russia is not my fatherland...and I disagree with many many decisions taken by that government.
Nevertheless ...I think that I am 100% sure.,..that if I remained alone with Zelenskii and Putin for 72 hours, I would make them sign an armistice and a treaty of peace.
So...the difference between me and those devilish warmongers who just want to sell warfare and become rich, is that I worship peace while they worship the demonic deity called money-god.
Verstanden?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Russia is not my fatherland...and I disagree with many many decisions taken by that government.
Nevertheless ...I think that I am 100% sure.,..that if I remained alone with Zelenskii and Putin for 72 hours, I would make them sign an armistice and a treaty of peace.
So...the difference between me and those devilish warmongers who just want to sell warfare and become rich, is that I worship peace while they worship the demonic deity called money-god.
Verstanden?

Well. I hope that you have a normal enough everyday life and that you in effect cope well enough.

Have you ever consider that they don't want the same kind of peace and as it stands they won't agree. Has that ever even entered into your mind for consideration?

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

en.kremlin.ru

 

[Samael_Khan]

One thing that seems evident is that power is maintained by those at the top by keeping people divided and against each other. It's the old "divide and conquer" method which has been around forever. My view is more focused on economic and geopolitical unity where all citizens would have equal rights, and human rights would be paramount.

Tribal and cultural autonomy can still exist within such a global construct. I see no practical reason why a global socialist government would need to oppose that, as long as everyone can relate to each other as equals in good faith. I believe that economic and political equality can override cultural and tribal differences. As long as all groups are equal and no group has any power over another, the differences won't mean much of anything.

As for corruption, I've observed that one of the key enablers of corruption is that there are too many countries, too many jurisdictions, and too many safe havens for the corrupt to hide themselves and their money. If all countries and territories of the world were under a single government, there would be no safe havens, no "islands of convenience."

Yeah divide and conquer has been the go to tactic for the rich to maintain power. We see this now in America on the political stage. But the opposite is true as well, when a single government tries to govern multiple peoples with oppossing views, and the those who want freedom get oppressed. I believe a balance is required between the two for a healthy society to function.

I believe that power will always be sought by those who wish to attain it and they will end up in the highest of power in society. There will be groups who wish to have power over others and the government will support them. Simply, the practical reasons for a worlwide government to oppress tribal and cultural autonomy is for the sake of power over others, whether that be religious or ideological reasons.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah divide and conquer has been the go to tactic for the rich to maintain power. We see this now in America on the political stage. But the opposite is true as well, when a single government tries to govern multiple peoples with oppossing views, and the those who want freedom get oppressed. I believe a balance is required between the two for a healthy society to function.

I believe that power will always be sought by those who wish to attain it and they will end up in the highest of power in society. There will be groups who wish to have power over others and the government will support them. Simply, the practical reasons for a worlwide government to oppress tribal and cultural autonomy is for the sake of power over others, whether that be religious or ideological reasons.

Granted, I don't think there's any perfect solution to anything. I seriously doubt that any kind of worldwide government could ever come to pass anyway, as humans can often be a greedy, egotistical, proud, bull-headed, and oftentimes violent species. We may have made some progress, but not as much as many of us would like to believe.

I do know that people from different tribes, nations, and cultures can work and live side-by-side with each other as equals, they can cooperate with each other and find common ground, without any need for one to oppress the other. It is possible, even if they're from a different tribe, culture, or religion. But much of it depends upon the government which holds jurisdiction and the goals and values of whichever political faction happens to hold power. That's where it all gets dicey.

Of course, as you mention, there have been historical examples of single governments trying to govern multiple peoples. There have been a number of multinational empires throughout history, where a powerful kingdom might absorb smaller or weaker kingdoms into their domain, oftentimes violently. But even they were not completely global, since they were acting within the context of competing with other powerful empires who were doing the same thing. It was more a case of "if we don't do it, someone else will."

We've never had a situation where the entire world has been governed by a single entity. We probably never will. But it's not clear how long humanity can actually survive on the current path we're taking.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

This pretty much sums up how many Westerners have operated over the years. They've conquered and exploited most of the rest of the world, imposed a brutal hegemony over much of it, all the while becoming rich and patting themselves on the backs for their "hard work" within the wonderful capitalist system. Now, of course, in more recent times, a lot of white liberals have expressed a certain degree of guilt over that and have fallen over themselves trying to apologize for the past several centuries of history. They try to pass themselves off as the "good whites," who are woke and enlightened, emphasizing that the West has changed and reformed and "we're not like how we used to be."

It is true that we have changed and reformed somewhat, but perhaps more in a superficial and cosmetic sense than anything truly meaningful.

As a white, I always like to point out that I've always felt I was treated a bit better by other races, compared to how my own usually has treated me. It always seemed like I was judged way less, and I'm grateful for that

That said, I am wondering if there is a much more nuanced position on all of this, rather than what is presented in what seem like the mainstreamed viewpoints. I am not really a 'woke' person, and I am not full of guilt for who I am, and nor am I some hard-right kind of guy, who would want anything to do with 'white nationalism' or supremicism, or historical figures who were into that. Or if none of that is present in a rightist, I just don't like the vibe of parts of the right regarding this topic. I don't like 'gentrification,' and nor do I like lower class culture where it decides to be crude. I like to treat everybody else reasonably and fairly

I think we've done bad and good, we've had sloppy and stupid moments as well as innovative ones. Probably too much colonizing happened, and exploitation occurred. However, I think that generalizing any group is bad , because all humans can act as individuals who can choose to be either good or bad. No group is made purely of angels. We aren't the only people who colonized other places or had slaves, or governed badly. And in terms of world population, I'm not even sure that there are that many of us, in relative comparison to all the others

However, at this point in history, no race or ethnicity need actually exist, because the modern ability has come into fruition that humans can now all blend together, if we all wish. That means that race and ethnicity are now tribe-level attributes more than anything, and that this can be dissolved. If it is decided in the future that this would somehow alleviate tension on the planet, then this might occur.

Alternatively however, it might be decided that some diversity can be retained, if we are mature enough as a species to allow that. And I don't mean that with any hint of being facetious, as too often in history people have gone to war when they have even minor differences. Case and point, russia and ukraine. However, if russia and ukraine never went to war, but instead focused on their separate cultures in peace, then they could have contributed to the world two separate visions of what it means to be human, in peace

It is also the case that individuals themselves can be very unique, no matter where they come from. Therefore, the argument emerges that this quality of being human, of being able to be a unique human no matter who one is, has primacy no matter what other attribute one has, that is layered upon them. And that it is potentially or arguably more interesting to see what the individual produces in contrast to what different groups produce.

But we do tend to like being a part of groups , of tribes, to give off a sense of greater social connection. Even though I've always been a bit of an unliked hermit , I can also see that people can like their groups, and that much production seems to be tied to the group-level, in humans

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I can promise you that the worst exploiters have been Britain and France.
The worst crimes were committed by them.
So Europeans is a quite broad term.

I was trying to read about world war 1 a while ago, and is it true that lots of different european countries were warring within africa at that time?

Fast forwarding to modern times, I don't know if China's role in Africa was mentioned in your thread, as I'm still reading it. What resources does that country want from Africa, and are they getting it fairly, and at what scale

 

[Samael_Khan]

I was trying to read about world war 1 a while ago, and is it true that lots of different european countries were warring within africa at that time?

Fast forwarding to modern times, I don't know if China's role in Africa was mentioned in your thread, as I'm still reading it. What resources does that country want from Africa, and are they getting it fairly, and at what scale

Yes, because of colonisation, colonised countries of the allied forces fought german colonies on African soil.

Regarding China, it has business relationships with many African countries and pays for development. I imagine that they would want a variety of resources such as cobalt, gold and such minerals for various reasons. There is also the matter of chinese corporations wanting to make money. Temu and Schein have just recently opened the market to Africans through their marketing and sell things for cheap. Africa benefits from China by being able to buy resources such as paper for printing companies, as Europe has difficulty delivering and manufacturing materials because of what is happening in Ukraine and they are more expensive than China.

African leaders prefer working with China because China treats them as equals whereas the west infantilises Africans. China offers to build infrastructure for a price which is business practice. Often times Africa having to get things from the west puts them in colonial debt. And Africas past with europe and america is pretty brutal, whereas their history with China is much much better, in the same way as their past relationship is better with Russia, because the two countries supported African liberation movements and those movements were largely influenced by communism which is why there is a lot of communist sympathy in Africa. They gave them the mentality, self confidence, and weapons to free themselves. Communism might also be closer ideologically to indigenous African culture than capitalism is, as African's prided community over individualism.

To put it simply: Africa has a very good historical relationship with Russia and China because they were their allies against colonialism. That is the lense through which you should see their current relationships. There is a lot of loyalty there. Which is why BRICS is a thing. And that common goal is still active.

Africa does not have a good historical relationship with the west because the west colonised them and currently neo-colonise them. So Africa works with europenbecause they have to, not because they want to.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Yes, because of colonisation, colonised countries of the allied forces fought german colonies on African soil.

Regarding China, it has business relationships with many African countries and pays for development. I imagine that they would want a variety of resources such as cobalt, gold and such minerals for various reasons. There is also the matter of chinese corporations wanting to make money. Temu and Schein have just recently opened the market to Africans through their marketing and sell things for cheap. Africa benefits from China by being able to buy resources such as paper for printing companies, as Europe has difficulty delivering and manufacturing materials because of what is happening in Ukraine and they are more expensive than China.

African leaders prefer working with China because China treats them as equals whereas the west infantilises Africans. China offers to build infrastructure for a price which is business practice. Often times Africa having to get things from the west puts them in colonial debt. And Africas past with europe and america is pretty brutal, whereas their history with China is much much better, in the same way as their past relationship is better with Russia, because the two countries supported African liberation movements and those movements were largely influenced by communism which is why there is a lot of communist sympathy in Africa. They gave them the mentality, self confidence, and weapons to free themselves. Communism might also be closer ideologically to indigenous African culture than capitalism is, as African's prided community over individualism.

To put it simply: Africa has a very good historical relationship with Russia and China because they were their allies against colonialism. That is the lense through which you should see their current relationships. There is a lot of loyalty there. Which is why BRICS is a thing. And that common goal is still active.

Africa does not have a good historical relationship with the west because the west colonised them and currently neo-colonise them. So Africa works with europenbecause they have to, not because they want to.

Ok. Well I have read a couple books that relate modern political situations in Africa, and I want to read some more, to try and better understand what you are saying. The two books I recently read were 'Cobalt Red,' and another on the Rwandan genocide. But I don't know anything about South Africa, so I'll probably look for a book on that relatively soon. I can't directly discuss the content of the books because of copyright and all that, but I'll keep reading about it

All I can say is, we're not all bad in the west here. I have enough trouble getting along with other westerners. Just now I was on a brisk walk, and I was worried that this kid in a sportscar wasn't going to stop at a stop sign, but he did. I get along with people who like thinking and reading, and are patient, but they seem kinda rare around here.