[nemo44x]

Perhaps they can, but there’s 0 evidence for it. Regardless my point was that they have had tremendous suffering since being decolonized. Endless conflict with external meddling from all over. I suspect that had they been under colonial rule since then they’d have significantly less suffering and stable. But what can you do because that ship sailed.

[rmbyrro]

> Perhaps they can, but there’s 0 evidence for it.

Wouldn't this way of thinking prevent any improvement at all?

If I must have accomplished something before believing I may be able to accomplish, how am I even going to try?

[nemo44x]

They’ve had endless civil war essentially for 70 years. Maybe “Sudan” isn’t a real place and the people inhabiting those lands need to sort it out and figure out who rules what. The UN should stop recognizing Sudan as a state as it’s obviously failed. Remove itself from the region and let the people there figure out borders. Rip the Bandai’s off instead of prolonging this idea of Sudan that obviously isn’t real.

[rmbyrro]

That's way different from something like 'what's missing in Sudan is a colonial power to rule them'.

[nemo44x]

People need to be ruled to maintain order. The alternative is chaos which leads to suffering until order is restored. The colonists ruled competently and maintained order even if your social justice reflex doesn’t feel good about it. What they left, decolonization, is a soft colonization from afar, managed by entities with no skin in it. This is why it’s disorderly and chaos reigns and suffering is a way of life for the people of those lands.

Colonization is preferable to that. However, because that’s not a palatable form of social order today the next best thing is complete abandonment and true self determination to discover where the borders are and who rules them. This will be bloody, yes, but have an outcome that leads to order if not tampered with. That’s preferable to the last 70 years.