Can Haiti save Iraq?

[readherring]

I've been kicking this idea around for a few days, and I'd like to know what y'all think about it. Particularly those of you who have served or have visited in Iraq or Afghanistan

Comments

[dreamsofpaprika]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. It's like Colonial South Africa. Obviously, the Brits had no good intentions for wanting to colonize the Africans, because that was not their single-minded goal. They could care less about building a nation; all they wanted was the gold and diamonds. But there are civilizations out there in the past who have solely exploted colonialism on certain corrupt and impoverished countries with intentions to only want to colonize them because there was nothing to take. Keep in mind, though, the reasons for the practice of colonialism, especially between the years of 1740-1914 include:

The profits to be made.
To expand the power of the metropole.
To escape persecution in the metropole.
To convert the indigenous population to the colonists' religion.

[readherring]

I think we're past the age of colonialism - overt colonialism, anyway. Besides, a country working to improve another country doesn't necessarily make it a colonial or a harmful power. Canada seems to be rather adept at going on aid missions without acquiring colonies, for example.

Also, if you'll forgive me for a bit of rambling on history:

I think the original intentions of the British were to take South Africa because they could control trade with the Far East if they did.

I believe the first Europeans to set up shop in South Africa were the Portugese. They were the first nation to start the trend of European expansion, and they weren't such bad folks. The Portugese set up a network of armed trading posts around the world. They didn't bring masses of settlers or missionaries. The commerce helped enrich the local powers, so they were pretty well tolerated.

[dreamsofpaprika]

Oh, yes I know! I was just using colonialism as an example.

Yes, the Portuguese were the first to set up trading ports in West Africa before the Atlantic Slave Trade. Then the British and the eventually the Italians followed. The powerful matriarch of the Asante tribe (Ashanti) drove them off when they tried to colonize modern-day Ghana in what is known today as the Berlin Conference.

But yes, you are absolutely right.

[underlankers]

I think both of you forget there had been a slave trade ongoing for quite some time by then: the Islamic Slave Trade which targeted non-Muslim Africans. Europeans didn't need African slaves for some time because they had the Slav. Which is why English uses "slave" and not "Thrall" the Native word for slave.

[dreamsofpaprika]

Oh no, I didn't foreget that! I'm just saying that the Portugueses established several settlements along the West coast before Europeans butted in. Muslims were before the Portugueses and the Asante, Dinka, Olinka, etc. tribes of West Africa had slave markets selling slaves from other tribes before that. Then the Muslims expressed interest in the slave ports. Islam consolidated its position in east Africa and the Sudan before the Portuguese, but they were suspicious of the Portugueses when they came. The small states of the Senegambian caost did not impress the Portuguese, and they in turn were suspicious of the Muslims because they were their traditonal enemies.

But before all this, there was the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade where the Arabs transported slaves from East Africa.

I was just talking about the Atlantic Slave Trade, so...

[underlankers]

Except that the British established control of South Africa by defeating *white* Africans in the Boer Wars. And of course the actual Indigenous South Africans are not the Bantu, who came from West Africa, but the Bushmen.

[dreamsofpaprika]

Right, (the White Africans are better known as the Afrikaaners), but yes