[lelanthran]

A lot of your argument relies on the assertion that the West took resources from Africa.

And yes, while that is true to some extent, it is not the whole story.

> America's wealth was greatly enhanced by the railways built by the slaves they stole.

IIRC (and wikipedia agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade) the slaves were bought by the west. The theft was done by native Africans for the most part.

Africans enslaved other Africans and then sold them.

Should the west have refused to buy those slaves from Africans? Certainly, but it was not the West that, for the most part, enslaved and then sold the African slaves.

> And hey, look at that, Shell is busy sonar blasting our coastline for fucking oil. Great. You think we're gonna see any of that money? Not a chance. Nevermind the destruction they're causing, at least the westerners can drive their cars around. But hey, we should just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, right?

Who'd you vote for?

Because I can all but guarantee that the Shell paid money for whatever they are doing, and if you are not seeing any of that money, it is going to the leaders who sold Shell those rights.

So yeah, "The West" is buying resources at fire-sale prices from Africa, but they they're paying your leaders, and if you don't see a cent of that money, it is not the West's fault.

If your are unhappy that the resources are being mined relentlessly and you are getting nothing in return, then ask yourself where that money is going. If you think the land is being destroyed, ask yourself why you voted in leaders who took the money in exchange for destroying the land.

> But the west has 0 understanding of what they did here, they elected to whitewash history instead. Plenty of scars to disprove the narratives.

I'm South African, always have been. We have plenty of scars, but a significant number of them are self-inflicted. We vote along tribal lines (white man bad, black man good) and are then surprised when we don't see a cent of all the money going to our politicians.

[zohch]

> If your are unhappy that the resources are being mined relentlessly and you are getting nothing in return, then ask yourself where that money is going. If you think the land is being destroyed, ask yourself why you voted in leaders who took the money in exchange for destroying the land.

I would bet money that the majority of the revenue of mineral sales actually goes to South Africans and not foreigners, and I would even bet money it is more than 75% of the revenue.

[lelanthran]

> I would bet money that the majority of the revenue of mineral sales actually goes to South Africans and not foreigners, and I would even bet money it is more than 75% of the revenue, based on how shitty South African mining shares are.

Maybe; I don't really know the details behind the sale of mineral rights but I DO know that they are never given away for free and that usually they are sold to the highest bidder. Maybe in the case mentioned by GP (Shell) the mineral rights were sold below what the market would have borne.

My heart breaks for the South African masses; and then I talk to them, and every impoverished person I speak to is certain that they would be worse off if they voted differently. Vote another party in power? Never - the party that has failed to govern South Africa effectively since 1994 is still in power!

South Africa's poverty is, at this point, self-inflicted. I have more than a few ideas on how this can be solved, but none of the solutions involve a) Race or b) kickbacks, so you can forget about SA digging itself out of this hole.

[zohch]

> My heart breaks for the South African masses;

My heart used to break for them, but really, why shed a tear, this is what the South African masses vote for, and this is what they get good and hard, and god forbid anyone stands in their way of them getting it as good and hard as they possibly can get it before civil war finally burns the country to a cinder, at the very least they can find comfort in knowing south africans would have burned most of the county down before a civil war erupts:

- Why are South Africans burning schools in Limpopo? (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-36225502)

- Why Cape Town's trains are on fire in South Africa (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45990981)

- South African university set ablaze in student protest (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/south-african-...)

Burning their country down seem to be their national passtime, or at least while they are not lynching foreigners. But I'm sure one of them will come along to blame the west for this also.

[yunohn]

> Certainly, but it was not the West that, for the most part, enslaved and then sold the African slaves.

Surely the righteous West could’ve freed those slaves and not fought to keep them for centuries?

If you read the wiki link further, you’ll see that they paid Africans to find slaves, because they couldn’t survive on their own - amidst warring tribes and diseases. They would transport slaves as cargo, resell them throughout the West, indenture them in plantations and factories, make a racial caste that would propagate for centuries, mistreat them and kill them, and so on. It’s absolutely insane to frame colonialism in a callous manner such as you have, in 2021!

> Because I can all but guarantee that the Shell paid money

This should be investigated by the Western govs that Shell works with. Everyone knows this is happening all the time. How are they allowed to bribe poor countries, in the first place?

> you are getting nothing in return, then ask yourself where that money is going

Politicians in the West are also equally corrupt, on all sides, and none of their earnings are distributed to the people. What kind of weird argument is this?

> I'm South African, always have been

Doesn’t matter. You still seem to misunderstand colonialism’s effects, and post modern colonialism as it stands today.

[lelanthran]

> Surely the righteous West could’ve freed those slaves and not fought to keep them for centuries?

Where did I claim that the West was not at fault?

(The rest of your argument relies on this sort of strawman so there's no need to respond to it).

[yunohn]

There is no strawman?

Your whole post relies on blaming SA for what happened to them, using their fellow SAfricans who exploited them (alongside the West) as a fall-guy. That’s a very unfair characterisation of colonialism and its modern effects, like I claimed in my post.

Further, similarly to the way you dismissed the West for purchasing slaves, you skipped over Shell getting away with bribing the poorer previously colonised country.

[lelanthran]

> Your whole post relies on blaming SA for what happened to them, using their fellow SAfricans who exploited them (alongside the West) as a fall-guy. That’s a very unfair characterisation of colonialism and its modern effects, like I claimed in my post.

No, I did not claim that, I am saying that the voters in South Africa are voting in policies based on color and racial lines, not based on their self-interest.

> Further, similarly to the way you dismissed the West for purchasing slaves,

I did not dismiss the West for purchasing slaves (I said that they should not have), I merely pointed out that native Africans were enslaving their neighbours (and worse) well before they started selling their slaves to the West.

> you skipped over Shell getting away with bribing the poorer previously colonised country.

I did not;

1) No accusation was made that Shell was bribing anyone,

and

2) I pointed out very clearly that mining rights are usually SOLD to the highest bidder by the state. If the state does not then use that money for its citizens, you can hardly blame the source of the money. Since the state is legitimately elected by the voters, the voters have only themselves to blame when their leaders (whom have been in charge for the last 30 years almost) take all the money.