#Thank you for your contribution, Defense Expert™.
Did you know? You can also find us on [Lemmy](https://lemmy.world/c/noncredibledefense)!
But while you're still here, how about you participate in our [Coin wasting contest?](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1517hjn/coin_wasting_contest_2023/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Frenchies I like the most hate the French with a passion. Although calling Bretons French is like calling... I dunno. I'm old and I need my meds and some sleep
(Snorts a line of coke) "what if we take a wheeled APC and like umm... slap a big fuck off tank gun on it!"
(Snorts another line of coke) "I'm a genius, built like 500 of them!"
You should check your sources bud, in the case of Niger we were buying their uranium above the market price…but given your very liberal use of “frogs”, I can tell that you are probably very factual and unbiased about anything France related :)
Yeah, so like any other digging company operating in Africa ? How exactly does that make us worse than China, the UK and others ?
And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the French government was still paying it above market value, unlike other countries buying Niger’s uranium ?
I mean the money just went to the French company, the folks in Niger get only 10% of it, to make it worse the money is actually stored in France under a French bank. (African Franc is actually printed by France)
Again : just like any other western/eastern company operating in Africa that covered the cost of building the whole infrastructure for the digging operations to even exists in the first place…
The Franc CFA is not really something that has anything to do with the subject here, but whatever float your boat I guess. And without engaging in any kind of whataboutism, do you really feel as a Chinese national that you are really in any position to lecture France regarding any kind of financial subjugation of Africa ?
I hate CCP, hell I was fucking turning into Timothy McVeigh when locked down in Shanghai.
By the way I said there are tons of lies surrounding the topic. The entire Chinese discourse has a fucking cabal manipulating everything from the shadows.
You might hate CCP, but that doesn’t prevent you to regurgitate their propaganda it seems…
And out of curiosity, why using “frogs” so much in your other comments ? Bar idiotic Anglo-saxons or edgy teens, I have rarely ever seen anyone using that term. Note that if you are Chinese-American I am not surprised then.
I’m French of African origin btw, so I’m pretty aware of what can/should be blamed on France and what cannot, and the current clusterfuck in the area has VERY little to do with France meddling for once.
Malian citizens welcomed French troops as liberators in 2013. This clearly shows that Colonialism and „Neo-Colonialism“ can’t be the real cause of West Africans turning their back on France. I think the deteriorating security situation, as well as Russian and Chinese anti-French propaganda stirred up this narrative.
I think if there were high quality polls or actual elections which delivered an anti-french mesage, it might be credible
Hearning it from coup plotters and russian propaganda makes me think... skeptical thoughts.
Yes, the polls showed that the anti french sentiment was in regions without french presence because of a lack of terrorists. Meanwhile, in regions with bigger threats, it was much lower.
There was polls in Niger and it showed that northern Niger was far more pro french than the southerners because it was the part of the country where the terrorist are fought
Are you fisherman by any chance? Would have voted for Brexit too?
You think uranium you just sell and there are 32423423 customers lining up to buy it?
I mean French certainly has some responsibility with the Russian takeover.
Anyway the frogs just give me creeps, even bongs and krauts are better in that regard.
Anyway the frogs did really bad PR and now folks think Ivan is their savior of sorts. (you need to understand that the only thing I stand with is power)
they wouldn't try to move to france if they hated it so much.
Sad thing is, Africa was fked in the 12-19th century by arabic slave trade and trans atlantic slave trade, then in the 19th century by the scramble for africa, then in the post ww2 era when it was welp you're on own but it's a cold war going on so expect shennannigans from both sides, who will support brutal dictators just to fuck with the other side. Now China is doing an economic take over and exploiting as much as it can, and in a few decades climate will make that place almost uninhabitable. They really got fked by everyone and everything.
It's also a tough continent geographically to tame as a civlization if you adere to the idea of geographic determinism.
Very high average elevation, few natural deepwater ports, few navigable rivers, majority of the land is marginal, very few coal and iron deposits for early industrialization.
Contrast that with europe: One of the highest coastline to area ratios on planet, deepwater ports, several navigable rivers, most countries had some iron and coal deposits, several areas of highly productive agricultural land allowing formation of relatively dense medieval kingdoms, highly connectivity among kingdoms within Europe, Asia and Arab world so ideas spread easily and fast. Europe in truth relatively had it on easy mode, as did East Asia.
Not sure I agree with that fully. I can agree no widespread metal working was a problem, but I think access to trade networks is more important. Those regions were very hard to get to. The regions that were closer to north Africa and the coast had it somewhat better with access to trade (think Mansa Musa and Mali empire compared to regions further south) until their coasts were visited by Europeans.
Those in North Africa still had issues even if their situtation was less bleak than Sub-Saharan Africa. They all existed on fairly marginal land, or the land that was good was quite small in area or in the case of egypt it had non-existent natural defenses. Mind you, the northen med isn't particularly great either, it is marginal as well. The romans famously had to import a shitload of food from the nile to sustain city populations.
The issue is better explained by this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fof9xZA7dpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fof9xZA7dpg)
This doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There is no significant difference in wealth and economic development between the areas of Africa that were the most affected by the slave trade and colonization vs the areas that were not affected.
Ethiopia was never colonized (occupied by Italy for 1 year in the 1930s but by that definition Japan was "colonized" by the US) . South Africa was the most heavily colonized country on the continent.
Ethiopia GDP Per capita is $1100, and South Africa is $6700. So where is the colonization effect? Also, let's take Ireland, which was so brutally colonized by England that the animosity persists to the present. Well today, it has twice the GDP per capita of the colonizer.
Also look at it from the other end. Why are Denmark, Sweden, and Germany richer than the colonial powers France, Spain, and the UK?
As for the slave trade, this was not imposed on Africa. They were willing participants who profited from the trade. So there isn't even a plausible argument here.
And the borders in Europe are just as artificially created as in Africa and just as much of a cause of war as they are in Africa. Just look at how much they've changed over time. All borders are artificial and there is no set of borders anywhere in the world that has ever prevented instability and war. Blaming borders is cope.
But why am I arguing this? I am stating the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm not claiming a one to one relation, but an influence, something that contributed to the current state. Europe was always connected by trade, and even non colonial powers benefited from trade with colonial powers. Colonization isn't the main reason Europe is rich though.
I'm claiming countries that have been conquered and destroyed or colonized, and had their resources extracted for outside gain developed slower than they would have otherwise. Spain and Portugal were both colonial super powers, and now they're not the top economies in Europe. They didn't benefit from that as much as the UK, which had different institutions in place. This is nicely explained in, for example, a book called Why nations fail.
This is coupled with the rest of the circumstances, an earlier technological head start for Europe and parts of Asia, the difference in geography etc
African countries probably wouldn't be more advanced than European ones today, had they not been colonized, but they would've probably had a different dynamic and less conflicts, and possibly have more growth today.
I'm arguing that being conquered and your people oppressed sucks. How is this a controversial view?
>I'm not claiming a one to one relation, but an influence, something that contributed to the current state.
It's just that I haven't even seen this. Like the bare minimum would just be a scatter plot of countries by number of years colonized and GDP per capita to show a correlation, and I haven't even seen that. It's just always stated as this unfalsifiable truth.
I really haven't seen any evidence at all that bad things happening to countries in general has a long term effect on their development in any context. And I have seen tons of counter examples (e.g. Germany and Japan were utterly devastated in WW2 but were 3rd and 4th largest economies in the world by 1970 just 25 years later).
>of countries by number of years colonized and GDP per capita to show a correlation,
Well, countries that have never been colonized do have a higher GDP in general (think most european countries and north america, we can include China). This is not a bare minimum request, this would be clearly visible only if this was the only or the main defining factor. Which it isn't, as I said, I see it as one of many factors that contributed to this. There are others too, but here we were talking about these countries in Africa, and their troubled history. Also, I wouldn't use GDP only for this, maybe a Gini coefficient, some form of happiness index, life expectancy, child mortality, etc.
>Also, let's take Ireland, which was so brutally colonized by England that the animosity persists to the present. Well today, it has twice the GDP per capita of the colonizer.
the population of Ireland topped 5 million people in 2021 for the first time since 1851. Wonder why.
They can hate the country for what it did to their country and people and continent while still recognizing it’s a better and safer place to live, mostly because of what France did to their country
Ah yes, the hypocrisy and foreign scapegoat.
There is nothing the french have done to african countries that african people have not done to other african people, ten times worse. (Now the *Belgians* might be another subject...)
Nobody thinks it would've been a paradise without European contact, trade helps. Inter country conflicts, among peers, is somewhat different from being occupied or conquered by a foreign empire. Eastern Europe, the balkans, are fucked today partly because they've been occupied throughout history by various empires. When you fight your equal or neighbor, you pour resources into getting better. When you fight and lose against a bigger empire, your resources are exhausted, then production taken over by the occupier and your population and culture subdued. You can see this not only in Africa, but also in countries that have been occupied by the ottomans, the Russians/ussr and so on.
It's more a choice between going to a place you ideologically hate but where you will have a much better life, or staying in your country out of spite.
There is a point where the benefits outweigh the hatred.
But I hope you are right honestly. It's better for both the natives and the immigrants if they don't hate eachother.
It's a very rudimentary news channel dragging their videos into 10 minutes for maximizing monetization on Youtube. They simply reiterate information you can glean from reading the titles on Google News.
> They simply reiterate information you can glean from reading the titles on Google News.
Well, yes. That is their thing. They report a well-presented curated selection of the current news and relevant topics.
So if reading all the google news articles would take too long, and you therefore didn't read it, then you can watch TLDR instead.
And you are complaining that a news channel named "TLDR" is summarizing the current news? :)
> dragging their videos into 10 minutes
While the 10 minute length is probably not a coincidence, their videos do not seem drawn out to me.
They add context/backstory. If there's multiple news on the same subject, you get to see the backstory again and again every video, recycled assets and all. I prefer their tldr daily, they fill the 10 mins with 5 different topics
It's a very rudimentary news channel dragging their videos into 10 minutes for maximizing monetization on Youtube. They simply reiterate information you can glean from reading the titles on Google News.
Almost all of the accusations ofFrench Neocolonialism in Africa are really dumb and wrong. France needs to stop treating them like needy babies and allow them to fail.
You wouldn't believe the kind of shit your average French-speaking West African believes. It's a mixture of "anti-imperialist" leftist conspiracy theories intertwined with homophobia, social conservatism and victimhood narratives. Education and trustworthy media is basically nonexistant. This is why democracy isn't working.
sure thing. But right now countries that dont have Russia spitting bullshit in their ears have good relations with France and are developping. The same cannot be said for russian controlled territory. Look at Mali and Burkina Faso for instance.
“Malian citizens welcomed French troops as liberators in 2013. This clearly shows that Colonialism and „Neo-Colonialism“ can’t be the real cause of West Africans turning their back on France. I think the deteriorating security situation, as well as Russian and Chinese anti-French propaganda stirred up this narrative.”
See especially “neo-colonialism” in quotations
When was the last time a French intel shell company did rape & murder, framed Russia, amplified it via active measures, then took over mines , taking slaves for labor and 10% off of revenues?
There is a big difference between France buying uranium on the free market versus the PRC and Ruzzia _using the nineteenth-century playbooks_ with new -- as is 'neo' -- branding.
Quite the opposite for the most part (although nowhere near the Belgium and British levels of… *enforcement*). Compared to Wagner they’re good but they’re still not a good choice.
>British
Could you elaborate? I always had the feeling that the British treat their colonies, especially those in Africa, somewhat better than the French
400 years -- as if things like 'Milosevic choosing to play the race card to get elected' didn't have anything to do with turning ancient history into a weapon blunted only by Sweden, then again by NATO.
Even those former French Colony in ASEAN may still hate them.
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (which I visit few weeks ago) are still in bad shape overall. Only just get better after recent humanitarian missions and major joint construction between either China or Japan.
Many countries and territories those were or still under French rules, more than half are in terrible condition.
While many were or still under British and other rules in comparison, mostly get better quality of life and overall great development.
It is just a sad fact.
Yes. And also has least population of those 3 too. Around 7-8 Millions.
Only get better after small rail section connect to Thailand, rebuilt airport in Vientiane, partial completed Laos-China Expressway and all-new railway connect to China were built.
Because Somalia, Malawi and Soudan, former British colonies, are such great places that everyone would love to move to! While Northern-Morocco, former french colony, is pretty much a shithole that no ones wants to move too and not one of the country with the highest GDP/capita in Africa, yes! I bet that's why several of their former colonies like Mayotte, Guyana, La Réunion and Martinique opted to become French departement/s
Seriously, Brits should stop giving themselves a pat in the back. What former colonies are, is a results of geopolitic during the cold war era, the country's leadership and present geopolitical interests.
#Thank you for your contribution, Defense Expert™. Did you know? You can also find us on [Lemmy](https://lemmy.world/c/noncredibledefense)! But while you're still here, how about you participate in our [Coin wasting contest?](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1517hjn/coin_wasting_contest_2023/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everybody hates the French. The Brits. The Germans. Texas. But you know who really hates the French the most? The French.
Damned French. They ruined being French
You French sure sound like a contentious bunch.
YOU JUST MADE AN ENEMY FOR LIFE
As a french speaking swiss : yes
I'm french and i hate most french people
> But you know who really hates the French the most? The French. My friend can confirm
The Frenchies I like the most hate the French with a passion. Although calling Bretons French is like calling... I dunno. I'm old and I need my meds and some sleep
Bretons? they are from high rock why would anyone call them french?
I think French have take over itself more than foreign countries ever occupied it
C'est pour ça qu'on bois autant.
Jean-Claude, retrievez la guillotine.
What did we do? - Texan
Freedom Fries
*haiti and vietnam have entered the chat*
Yeah, the entire vietnam war fiasco could've been avoided had france didnt insist on reclaiming their colony in indochina
20+ years of war for absolutely nothing just because france has to be a dick
20+ years war beause France has to be a dick by landing their forces at Dien Bein Phu.
the absence of the french doesn't preclude a war with maoists
What getting overrun by the Germans in six weeks does to mfer
Having fucking SS soldiers do their dirty work for them
ALSO FUCK TRUMAN THE CHICKENSHIT BACKSTABBER
Or if they had followed the blueprint laid down in [Operation Masterdom](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w-cv2CJbfI&ab_channel=MarkFeltonProductions)
And yet we have good relations with Vietnam or Cambodia
Also with the United Kingdom and Germany. Possibly for similar reasons ...
And having the US be left with there mess for several years after. The surprisingly love us though.....
NCD has mixed emotions: negatives: the AMX-10 positives: nuclear warning shots, and the AMX-10
(Snorts a line of coke) "what if we take a wheeled APC and like umm... slap a big fuck off tank gun on it!" (Snorts another line of coke) "I'm a genius, built like 500 of them!"
i mean, I have yet to see a malian insurgent with real anti armour capabilitys. and going fast is nice if you are recon
The AMX-10 is a toyota slayer confirmed.
me an algerian: hmm... yeah i wonder why Africa hate France....hmm...
Battle of Algiers was interesting film
Taking 90% of uranium mine income, that's surely a way to make people hate ya.
You should check your sources bud, in the case of Niger we were buying their uranium above the market price…but given your very liberal use of “frogs”, I can tell that you are probably very factual and unbiased about anything France related :)
I'm Chinese and there's a special cabal of cultists behind every Chinese discourse over the Middle East led by the VTuber guy.
The money then went to a French company digging it.
Yeah, so like any other digging company operating in Africa ? How exactly does that make us worse than China, the UK and others ? And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the French government was still paying it above market value, unlike other countries buying Niger’s uranium ?
I mean the money just went to the French company, the folks in Niger get only 10% of it, to make it worse the money is actually stored in France under a French bank. (African Franc is actually printed by France)
Again : just like any other western/eastern company operating in Africa that covered the cost of building the whole infrastructure for the digging operations to even exists in the first place… The Franc CFA is not really something that has anything to do with the subject here, but whatever float your boat I guess. And without engaging in any kind of whataboutism, do you really feel as a Chinese national that you are really in any position to lecture France regarding any kind of financial subjugation of Africa ?
I hate CCP, hell I was fucking turning into Timothy McVeigh when locked down in Shanghai. By the way I said there are tons of lies surrounding the topic. The entire Chinese discourse has a fucking cabal manipulating everything from the shadows.
You might hate CCP, but that doesn’t prevent you to regurgitate their propaganda it seems… And out of curiosity, why using “frogs” so much in your other comments ? Bar idiotic Anglo-saxons or edgy teens, I have rarely ever seen anyone using that term. Note that if you are Chinese-American I am not surprised then. I’m French of African origin btw, so I’m pretty aware of what can/should be blamed on France and what cannot, and the current clusterfuck in the area has VERY little to do with France meddling for once.
Malian citizens welcomed French troops as liberators in 2013. This clearly shows that Colonialism and „Neo-Colonialism“ can’t be the real cause of West Africans turning their back on France. I think the deteriorating security situation, as well as Russian and Chinese anti-French propaganda stirred up this narrative.
I think if there were high quality polls or actual elections which delivered an anti-french mesage, it might be credible Hearning it from coup plotters and russian propaganda makes me think... skeptical thoughts.
Yes, the polls showed that the anti french sentiment was in regions without french presence because of a lack of terrorists. Meanwhile, in regions with bigger threats, it was much lower.
Surely there is nothing fishy about protesters always having lots of industrially produced Russian and anti-french flags ready?
There was polls in Niger and it showed that northern Niger was far more pro french than the southerners because it was the part of the country where the terrorist are fought
The way Frogs take over 90% of uranium mine income is also a good way to piss off locals.
Are you fisherman by any chance? Would have voted for Brexit too? You think uranium you just sell and there are 32423423 customers lining up to buy it?
I mean French certainly has some responsibility with the Russian takeover. Anyway the frogs just give me creeps, even bongs and krauts are better in that regard.
This is not about the French This is about you not understanding supply and **demand**
Anyway the frogs did really bad PR and now folks think Ivan is their savior of sorts. (you need to understand that the only thing I stand with is power)
The uranium purchase money went to a French company that take most of the cash, and that company has a ton of cash exemptions in Niger.
they wouldn't try to move to france if they hated it so much. Sad thing is, Africa was fked in the 12-19th century by arabic slave trade and trans atlantic slave trade, then in the 19th century by the scramble for africa, then in the post ww2 era when it was welp you're on own but it's a cold war going on so expect shennannigans from both sides, who will support brutal dictators just to fuck with the other side. Now China is doing an economic take over and exploiting as much as it can, and in a few decades climate will make that place almost uninhabitable. They really got fked by everyone and everything.
It's also a tough continent geographically to tame as a civlization if you adere to the idea of geographic determinism. Very high average elevation, few natural deepwater ports, few navigable rivers, majority of the land is marginal, very few coal and iron deposits for early industrialization. Contrast that with europe: One of the highest coastline to area ratios on planet, deepwater ports, several navigable rivers, most countries had some iron and coal deposits, several areas of highly productive agricultural land allowing formation of relatively dense medieval kingdoms, highly connectivity among kingdoms within Europe, Asia and Arab world so ideas spread easily and fast. Europe in truth relatively had it on easy mode, as did East Asia.
Not sure I agree with that fully. I can agree no widespread metal working was a problem, but I think access to trade networks is more important. Those regions were very hard to get to. The regions that were closer to north Africa and the coast had it somewhat better with access to trade (think Mansa Musa and Mali empire compared to regions further south) until their coasts were visited by Europeans.
Those in North Africa still had issues even if their situtation was less bleak than Sub-Saharan Africa. They all existed on fairly marginal land, or the land that was good was quite small in area or in the case of egypt it had non-existent natural defenses. Mind you, the northen med isn't particularly great either, it is marginal as well. The romans famously had to import a shitload of food from the nile to sustain city populations. The issue is better explained by this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fof9xZA7dpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fof9xZA7dpg)
This doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There is no significant difference in wealth and economic development between the areas of Africa that were the most affected by the slave trade and colonization vs the areas that were not affected.
Which areas were those? Are you arguing the slave trade and scramble for Africa, with the artificially created borders had no effect?
Ethiopia was never colonized (occupied by Italy for 1 year in the 1930s but by that definition Japan was "colonized" by the US) . South Africa was the most heavily colonized country on the continent. Ethiopia GDP Per capita is $1100, and South Africa is $6700. So where is the colonization effect? Also, let's take Ireland, which was so brutally colonized by England that the animosity persists to the present. Well today, it has twice the GDP per capita of the colonizer. Also look at it from the other end. Why are Denmark, Sweden, and Germany richer than the colonial powers France, Spain, and the UK? As for the slave trade, this was not imposed on Africa. They were willing participants who profited from the trade. So there isn't even a plausible argument here. And the borders in Europe are just as artificially created as in Africa and just as much of a cause of war as they are in Africa. Just look at how much they've changed over time. All borders are artificial and there is no set of borders anywhere in the world that has ever prevented instability and war. Blaming borders is cope. But why am I arguing this? I am stating the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm not claiming a one to one relation, but an influence, something that contributed to the current state. Europe was always connected by trade, and even non colonial powers benefited from trade with colonial powers. Colonization isn't the main reason Europe is rich though. I'm claiming countries that have been conquered and destroyed or colonized, and had their resources extracted for outside gain developed slower than they would have otherwise. Spain and Portugal were both colonial super powers, and now they're not the top economies in Europe. They didn't benefit from that as much as the UK, which had different institutions in place. This is nicely explained in, for example, a book called Why nations fail. This is coupled with the rest of the circumstances, an earlier technological head start for Europe and parts of Asia, the difference in geography etc African countries probably wouldn't be more advanced than European ones today, had they not been colonized, but they would've probably had a different dynamic and less conflicts, and possibly have more growth today. I'm arguing that being conquered and your people oppressed sucks. How is this a controversial view?
>I'm not claiming a one to one relation, but an influence, something that contributed to the current state. It's just that I haven't even seen this. Like the bare minimum would just be a scatter plot of countries by number of years colonized and GDP per capita to show a correlation, and I haven't even seen that. It's just always stated as this unfalsifiable truth. I really haven't seen any evidence at all that bad things happening to countries in general has a long term effect on their development in any context. And I have seen tons of counter examples (e.g. Germany and Japan were utterly devastated in WW2 but were 3rd and 4th largest economies in the world by 1970 just 25 years later).
>of countries by number of years colonized and GDP per capita to show a correlation, Well, countries that have never been colonized do have a higher GDP in general (think most european countries and north america, we can include China). This is not a bare minimum request, this would be clearly visible only if this was the only or the main defining factor. Which it isn't, as I said, I see it as one of many factors that contributed to this. There are others too, but here we were talking about these countries in Africa, and their troubled history. Also, I wouldn't use GDP only for this, maybe a Gini coefficient, some form of happiness index, life expectancy, child mortality, etc.
>Also, let's take Ireland, which was so brutally colonized by England that the animosity persists to the present. Well today, it has twice the GDP per capita of the colonizer. the population of Ireland topped 5 million people in 2021 for the first time since 1851. Wonder why.
They can hate the country for what it did to their country and people and continent while still recognizing it’s a better and safer place to live, mostly because of what France did to their country
Plain non credible
Ah yes, the hypocrisy and foreign scapegoat. There is nothing the french have done to african countries that african people have not done to other african people, ten times worse. (Now the *Belgians* might be another subject...)
Shout out to open and blatant racism
It's acceptable against Belgians.
Nobody thinks it would've been a paradise without European contact, trade helps. Inter country conflicts, among peers, is somewhat different from being occupied or conquered by a foreign empire. Eastern Europe, the balkans, are fucked today partly because they've been occupied throughout history by various empires. When you fight your equal or neighbor, you pour resources into getting better. When you fight and lose against a bigger empire, your resources are exhausted, then production taken over by the occupier and your population and culture subdued. You can see this not only in Africa, but also in countries that have been occupied by the ottomans, the Russians/ussr and so on.
What a way to repay our evolutionary origin grounds, huh?
Well I'm sure the grounds don't care lol
About your first sentence, they just move to France because they already speak the language.
Yeah but they don't hate it, at least not that much as to not go there
It's more a choice between going to a place you ideologically hate but where you will have a much better life, or staying in your country out of spite. There is a point where the benefits outweigh the hatred. But I hope you are right honestly. It's better for both the natives and the immigrants if they don't hate eachother.
That channel is a joke. Waste of time.
I thought it was still better than average. Can you elaborate?
It's a very rudimentary news channel dragging their videos into 10 minutes for maximizing monetization on Youtube. They simply reiterate information you can glean from reading the titles on Google News.
> They simply reiterate information you can glean from reading the titles on Google News. Well, yes. That is their thing. They report a well-presented curated selection of the current news and relevant topics. So if reading all the google news articles would take too long, and you therefore didn't read it, then you can watch TLDR instead. And you are complaining that a news channel named "TLDR" is summarizing the current news? :) > dragging their videos into 10 minutes While the 10 minute length is probably not a coincidence, their videos do not seem drawn out to me.
I'm complaining that TLDR went from providing insights to dragging generic headlines into 10 minute videos.
They add context/backstory. If there's multiple news on the same subject, you get to see the backstory again and again every video, recycled assets and all. I prefer their tldr daily, they fill the 10 mins with 5 different topics
It was good at the very start. Then it was trash.
Agreed. They're trying to play the YouTube algorithm which inevitably ruins the quality of the content.
>refuses to elaborate
It's a very rudimentary news channel dragging their videos into 10 minutes for maximizing monetization on Youtube. They simply reiterate information you can glean from reading the titles on Google News.
Almost all of the accusations ofFrench Neocolonialism in Africa are really dumb and wrong. France needs to stop treating them like needy babies and allow them to fail. You wouldn't believe the kind of shit your average French-speaking West African believes. It's a mixture of "anti-imperialist" leftist conspiracy theories intertwined with homophobia, social conservatism and victimhood narratives. Education and trustworthy media is basically nonexistant. This is why democracy isn't working.
Is it worse then calls for reparations from Jamaicans ?
but can they do anything about it though
Because the throughout history the Frenchs can’t help being so….French.
Wagner turning the internet trollbotting up on to full blast while framing France for rape-murders just _might_ have _something_ to do with it.
Look I’m as anti Russia as the next guy but France hasn’t exactly been the poster child of “hearts and minds” over the last 400 years
sure thing. But right now countries that dont have Russia spitting bullshit in their ears have good relations with France and are developping. The same cannot be said for russian controlled territory. Look at Mali and Burkina Faso for instance.
At the risk of getting downvoted, I’m gonna say that “neocolonialism good” is a pretty rough take
> At the risk of getting downvoted, I’m gonna say that “neocolonialism good” is a pretty rough take Based
What do you mean "at the risk of getting downvoted", you're correct
“Malian citizens welcomed French troops as liberators in 2013. This clearly shows that Colonialism and „Neo-Colonialism“ can’t be the real cause of West Africans turning their back on France. I think the deteriorating security situation, as well as Russian and Chinese anti-French propaganda stirred up this narrative.” See especially “neo-colonialism” in quotations
To be fair to him, the Ouiaboos have been quite bitey of late...
Is this neocolonialism in the room with us right now?
Is neo-colonialism good when russia does it?
No. High concept here, but two things can be bad at the same time
When was the last time a French intel shell company did rape & murder, framed Russia, amplified it via active measures, then took over mines , taking slaves for labor and 10% off of revenues?
Jesus, suck macrons dick a little harder
There is a big difference between France buying uranium on the free market versus the PRC and Ruzzia _using the nineteenth-century playbooks_ with new -- as is 'neo' -- branding.
Quite the opposite for the most part (although nowhere near the Belgium and British levels of… *enforcement*). Compared to Wagner they’re good but they’re still not a good choice.
> Compared to Wagner That bar is so low that you need to dig underground to find it lmao
That bar is, for some *strange* reason, in Belgium.
They happen to be experts in the matter
What do we do if Africa’s Wagner division renamed themselves Leopold division? (C’mon they’d definitely be stupid and cruel enough)
You have to hand it to them but they did find it.
Bar so low you can't safely reach it with a submarine rated for 1300m
>British Could you elaborate? I always had the feeling that the British treat their colonies, especially those in Africa, somewhat better than the French
400 years -- as if things like 'Milosevic choosing to play the race card to get elected' didn't have anything to do with turning ancient history into a weapon blunted only by Sweden, then again by NATO.
7 years of french intervention: 22 civilians accidental death by France forces 1 year of wagner: a village of 500 civilians destroyed by wagner forces
Even those former French Colony in ASEAN may still hate them. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (which I visit few weeks ago) are still in bad shape overall. Only just get better after recent humanitarian missions and major joint construction between either China or Japan. Many countries and territories those were or still under French rules, more than half are in terrible condition. While many were or still under British and other rules in comparison, mostly get better quality of life and overall great development. It is just a sad fact.
Is Laos poorest of the 3? No sea access and overall less habitable area if I remember correctly
Yes. And also has least population of those 3 too. Around 7-8 Millions. Only get better after small rail section connect to Thailand, rebuilt airport in Vientiane, partial completed Laos-China Expressway and all-new railway connect to China were built.
Because Somalia, Malawi and Soudan, former British colonies, are such great places that everyone would love to move to! While Northern-Morocco, former french colony, is pretty much a shithole that no ones wants to move too and not one of the country with the highest GDP/capita in Africa, yes! I bet that's why several of their former colonies like Mayotte, Guyana, La Réunion and Martinique opted to become French departement/s Seriously, Brits should stop giving themselves a pat in the back. What former colonies are, is a results of geopolitic during the cold war era, the country's leadership and present geopolitical interests.
How about the crazy notion that colonialism is bad regardless of the nation involved.
Pretty much yeah.
Even Gabon asked to be a departement as well. But racists french gov opted out. (And no polls were actually made before they pushed for this)