Sierra Leone: Are the Preconditions of War Returning?

[nino_savatte]

Sihii I stand corrected. The two contexts are clearly even closer than I had thought. The pattern of colonialism has been going on for centuries, I don't expect the Viking raiders of northern England were much better, but it's high time it stopped, really.

Ah, but you didn't believe me - did you? Do you honestly think that I would lie to gain some form of cheap advantage? There are others on Urban who do that but I don't. I believe in honesty at all times.

Of course there were also many comparable atrocities committed in Vietnam during the war there too.

 

[Idris2002]

Sihii I stand corrected. The two contexts are clearly even closer than I had thought. The pattern of colonialism has been going on for centuries, I don't expect the Viking raiders of northern England were much better, but it's high time it stopped, really.

And the reason I posted that paper in the OP is that IMO present-day 'humanitarian intervention' reproduces all the old shite of colonialism under a touch-feely 'humanitarian' veneer.

 

[slaar]

Ah, but you didn't believe me - did you? Do you honestly think that I would lie to gain some form of cheap advantage? There are others on Urban who do that but I don't. I believe in honesty at all times.

Of course there were also many comparable atrocities committed in Vietnam during the war there too.

In general nino you're straight up on urban, and I respect that. If however you mean, "do I accept anything anyone says to me here without any evidence", then no I didn't and don't. You could have posted something up, but you didn't, instead moving straight to accusations of racist and imperalist thought. I genuinely believed the atrocities here to have been worse in extremis than elsewhere. Now it looks like they weren't. I hope you'll similarly retract the bits about playing a white imperalist tune, but I won't hold my breath.

Idris - That's something I've obviously been wondering about a lot here. The fact remains that, whatever the motive, if the British Army had not intervened the war would not have ended when it did, and may not have ended at all. The ECOMOG West African "peacekeepers" were guilty of some horrendous atrocities and were intimately involved in the diamond smuggling business etc. The UN were in disarray out here. So it's hard to square that with the attitude that what is going on here now is identical to under colonialism. There are many similarities, I agree, but also important differences.

 

[nino_savatte]

In general nino you're straight up on urban, and I respect that. If however you mean, "do I accept anything anyone says to me here without any evidence", then no I didn't and don't. You could have posted something up, but you didn't, instead moving straight to accusations of racist and imperalist thought. I genuinely believed the atrocities here to have been worse in extremis than elsewhere. Now it looks like they weren't. I hope you'll similarly retract the bits about playing a white imperalist tune, but I won't hold my breath.

.

I stand by everything that I've said. My remarks about imperialism and the view that white people hold with regards to Africa and black Africans still stands. I am sorry if you feel uncomfortable with that but perhaps you need to challenge one or two perceptions of your own.

 

[nino_savatte]

And the reason I posted that paper in the OP is that IMO present-day 'humanitarian intervention' reproduces all the old shite of colonialism under a touch-feely 'humanitarian' veneer.

Exactly.

 

[Idris2002]

Idris - That's something I've obviously been wondering about a lot here. The fact remains that, whatever the motive, if the British Army had not intervened the war would not have ended when it did, and may not have ended at all. The ECOMOG West African "peacekeepers" were guilty of some horrendous atrocities and were intimately involved in the diamond smuggling business etc. The UN were in disarray out here. So it's hard to square that with the attitude that what is going on here now is identical to under colonialism. There are many similarities, I agree, but also important differences.

Colonialism as we knew it was one episode in the history of imperialism. The methods may have changed - hence those important differences you mention - but the imperialist agenda remains the same. Africa is to be held down as a source of cheap raw materials and cheap labour, and damn the consequences to Africa's population.

*Maybe* the war with the RUF required some effective outside intervention. But I am going to carry on being very, very suspicious of any arguments that rely on this as a trump card to shut down any criticisms of intervention in general.

Not that I'm saying you're doing that; keep thinking about it, and keep posting here, OK?

 

[slaar]

Profesionally and academically it's practically the only thing I think about. I am up against the effects of unequal economies and societies every hour of every working day, and witness the social effects every waking minute. So there's no chance of me stopping posting on here about it!

Eyes wide open, I hope.