[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.