A Multi-polar World with Anchor Nations

[swerve]

"Nigeria? French? You're obviously confusing it with some other country, which is an extraordinary thing to do, since Nigeria is very hard to mistake for anywhere else.

See the above. Any lets say "untainted" information can be hard to get about africa. To much politics and racism out of both sides colors the history. Plus its safer for me to say nigeria than Niger. As i once mentioned it in a chat channel and got called a racist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remind me not to ask you any questions about African geography, history, or current affairs"

See the above. Any tips on some good books to read on the subject. About all you get as far as public education on african history in us is "slaves were taken from africa then to America." Not very complete. Though i do know about the aksumites (was it axsum or aksum? i've seen both)..

Ignorance is forgiveable, & you're obviously keen to fill in the gaps in your knowledge, which is admirable.

If ignorant idiots attack you for mentioning Niger (pronounced Knee-zhair by the locals & the French, or traditionally Neye-jer in English), try Senegal or Gabon.

I can't recommend any particular books (where to start?), but for the basics, don't despise Wikipedia. It's the sort of thing it's pretty good for, as long as you don't assume it's 100% accurate. Look at a map of Africa, look up the Wikipedia pages for any country, city or whatever you're interested in, then follow the references given at the foot of the page where you want to know more. That'll give you some book titles.

Searching Amazon for books about specific countries will bring up loads of titles, & reviews for a lot of them.

I was once told by someone that Timbuctoo [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu"]Timbuktu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Timbuktu_Mosque_Sankore.jpg" class="image" title="Sankore Mosque in Timbuktu"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Timbuktu_Mosque_Sankore.jpg/250px-Timbuktu_Mosque_Sankore.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/44/Timbuktu_Mosque_Sankore.jpg/250px-Timbuktu_Mosque_Sankore.jpg[/ame] (old English spelling - Timbuktu or Tombouctou nowadays) was a mythical place. It actually has a fascinating history.

Good luck.

 

[Belesari]

I'll try that.

Wikipedia is fine as long as your careful and it isnt vital for any of the major social or political drivers.

Ignorance is forgiveable, & you're obviously keen to fill in the gaps in your knowledge, which is admirable.

If ignorant idiots attack you for mentioning Niger (pronounced Knee-zhair by the locals & the French, or traditionally Neye-jer in English), try Senegal or Gabon.

I can't recommend any particular books (where to start?), but for the basics, don't despise Wikipedia. It's the sort of thing it's pretty good for, as long as you don't assume it's 100% accurate. Look at a map of Africa, look up the Wikipedia pages for any country, city or whatever you're interested in, then follow the references given at the foot of the page where you want to know more. That'll give you some book titles.

Searching Amazon for books about specific countries will bring up loads of titles, & reviews for a lot of them.

I was once told by someone that Timbuctoo Timbuktu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (old English spelling - Timbuktu or Tombouctou nowadays) was a mythical place. It actually has a fascinating history.

Good luck.

 

[exported_kiwi]

M2Cents has it right - it sounds a bit sarcastic mate. Post colonialism has its own pitfalls etc. Not everybody comes out the other end smelling of roses.



You seem to be showing you ignorance of foreign affairs. China invaded Tibet in 1959 I think. We still have protests here about Tibet every time a high Chinese govt official visits. and I presume the NZG mentions it regularly to the Chinese Govt when it has high level contacts - if they don't they bloody well should. I can't speak for other nations. I think the US would be speaking first and loudly from on high about Chinese colonialism when it suits their purpose, like most nations.

Heck mate, I live in China and thewy jump up and down every time a foreign leader meets with the Dalai Lama, then the claim that all there sacreaming and shouting about, and Taiwan etc, isn't interfering in foreign countries affairs, which is a stated policy of the PRC gov't. As far as colonisation goes, China is already colonising Africa economically via chequebook diplomacy and "gifts". Next will be the Spratleys, and after that, maybe North Korea if Kim Jr steps out of line, then maybe Myanmar and so on. Living here gives me a good idea of their ambitions.

 

[ngatimozart]

Heck mate, I live in China and thewy jump up and down every time a foreign leader meets with the Dalai Lama, then the claim that all there sacreaming and shouting about, and Taiwan etc, isn't interfering in foreign countries affairs, which is a stated policy of the PRC gov't. As far as colonisation goes, China is already colonising Africa economically via chequebook diplomacy and "gifts". Next will be the Spratleys, and after that, maybe North Korea if Kim Jr steps out of line, then maybe Myanmar and so on. Living here gives me a good idea of their ambitions.

Fair enough mate. Although "colonising of Africa" via cheque book is not a definition of colonisation per se. The invasion and subsequent subsumation of Tibet is colonisation in all its forms; marginalisation, alienation, assimilation, subsumation, repression etc. What the PRC is doing in Africa is just resource acquisition without the the physical invasion and cultural repression of the indigenous peoples. Big difference.

 

[My2Cents]

Fair enough mate. Although "colonising of Africa" via cheque book is not a definition of colonisation per se. The invasion and subsequent subsumation of Tibet is colonisation in all its forms; marginalisation, alienation, assimilation, subsumation, repression etc. What the PRC is doing in Africa is just resource acquisition without the the physical invasion and cultural repression of the indigenous peoples. Big difference.

Don’t be too sure about China’s behavior in Africa, or even the Middle East, there is not a track record to base it on. One telling factor in Africa is that they have required most of the facilities they are paying for to be built, maintained, and operated using exclusively Chinese nationals. In the Sudan they are even bringing in Chinese troops to defend them. We will have to wait and see what happens the first time a local government tries to ‘liberate’ a major holding. :unknown

 

[ngatimozart]

Don’t be too sure about China’s behavior in Africa, or even the Middle East, there is not a track record to base it on. One telling factor in Africa is that they have required most of the facilities they are paying for to be built, maintained, and operated using exclusively Chinese nationals. In the Sudan they are even bringing in Chinese troops to defend them. We will have to wait and see what happens the first time a local government tries to ‘liberate’ a major holding. :unknown

By definition to colonise someone you have to invade them, then displace them, alienate them from their land, culture, religion, language and beliefs. I can see why the PLA have troops in the Sudan guarding their facilities just for basic security. I think in the case of Africa it is a big leap to suggest colonisation.

 

[My2Cents]

By definition to colonise someone you have to invade them, then displace them, alienate them from their land, culture, religion, language and beliefs. I can see why the PLA have troops in the Sudan guarding their facilities just for basic security. I think in the case of Africa it is a big leap to suggest colonisation.

Most of the colonies started the same way, from local trading posts run by the country that ends up colonizing them.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Most of the colonies started the same way, from local trading posts run by the country that ends up colonizing them.

While Ngatimozart is correct in his definition and description of colonialism from a 'fait accompli' perspective, he missed step one.

My2Cents has clearly described 'step one' of the usual MO of a coloniser, historical references abound to support his point. North America, Australasia, Africa, South America, Asia, South Asia etc. etc.

Also as My2Cents says, wait until a host nation decides it's getting a raw deal and wants China or its 'base guards' out and they don't want to go.

Perhaps the Chinese will offer to provide a full military security shield for the suddenly popular, pro Chinese opposition 'party' that will sweep to power? Been done before.

A 'puppet regime' staffed by foreigners, protected in country by a foreign military, for the main benefit of said foreign power, is just a pseudonym for an iteration of colonialism isn't it?

Again, its been done before [refer the Raj] and isn't a big step from 'base protection', there we leave M2C,s crucial step one in the sequence of colonisation.

Is China the only country today capable of performing a 'classic' trans oceanic colonisation? If the answers yes, displacement etc takes time, so watch their armed 'trading posts', to paraphrase M2C...it all starts here!

Cheers,
Mac

 

[ngatimozart]

Most of the colonies started the same way, from local trading posts run by the country that ends up colonizing them.

Yep, but in todays world I can't see the PRC wanting to colonise Africa. Be more trouble than its worth and politically unacceptable. However having economic clout is another story. my countryman exported kiwi is correct in calling the PRC a coloniser with imperial ambitions when you look at the overall definitions, so I do stand corrected. When you think about it the US is also a colonial power - imperial power. Both countries meet the criteria in that they economically dominate and politically dominate. US culture dominates the world in music, film, beverages and fast food. US military spending is in the region of 4 times greater than Chinese military spending and that excludes what the US also spends on security. Yet when challenged the US usually reacts arrogantly, empirically e.g., NZ nuke law or asking China to justify why it is building carriers. China is the same especially where Tibet is involved or the South China Sea or Falung Gong.

I am not bagging the US just pointing out that colonisation has many definitions and the US fits some of them as does my own country.

 

[riksavage]

The PRC will have enough on its plate containing a rapidly expanding population. Trade expansion across Africa is about feeding the aspirations of the country's expanding middle classes - they want 2 x cars, IPADS, washing machines like everyone else.

Historically the most catastrophic events that have impacted China have largely been internal (see list below). That's why they are obsessed with cracking down on any dissent (Tiananmen Square, Falung Gong, Tibet). The Taiping Rebellion was started by a religious cult - the Falun Gong isn't that dissimilar. The Cultural Revolution was driven by students, same as the protest in Tiananmen Square. We may not see a connection, but the PRC old guard might, they may use one to justify heavy handedness to suppress another before the event escalates out of control.

1. An Lushan Rebellion - 33-36 million dead

2. Taiping Rebelion - 20-30 million dead

3. Qing Dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynesty - 25 million dead

4. Yellow Turban Rebellion - 5-7 million dead

5. Great Chinese Famine (caused by Chairman Mao's 'great leap backwards') - 20 - 40 million dead

In the case of 1,2,3 & 5 losses are comparible with those suffered by all nations during WWII

The PRC are already starting to feel the wrath of disgruntled locals in Africa and Pakistan. Only a small group of wealthy local chiefs/community heads tend to benefit, the rest don't. During construction/mining phases labour battalions are all brought in from China and fed and watered by Chinese contractors.

 

[My2Cents]

Yep, but in todays world I can't see the PRC wanting to colonise Africa. Be more trouble than its worth and politically unacceptable. However having economic clout is another story. my countryman exported kiwi is correct in calling the PRC a coloniser with imperial ambitions when you look at the overall definitions, so I do stand corrected. When you think about it the US is also a colonial power - imperial power. Both countries meet the criteria in that they economically dominate and politically dominate. US culture dominates the world in music, film, beverages and fast food. US military spending is in the region of 4 times greater than Chinese military spending and that excludes what the US also spends on security. Yet when challenged the US usually reacts arrogantly, empirically e.g., NZ nuke law or asking China to justify why it is building carriers. China is the same especially where Tibet is involved or the South China Sea or Falung Gong.

The PRC will have enough on its plate containing a rapidly expanding population. Trade expansion across Africa is about feeding the aspirations of the country's expanding middle classes - they want 2 x cars, IPADS, washing machines like everyone else.

China does not want Africans, and are not particularly concerned about African markets. What they do want is secure African resources. The question is whether or not they will be willing to share in the global market – i.e. if the locals can get a better price by selling the production to someone else, are the Chinese willing to meet that price? And if the answer is ‘No’, will they attempt to take over the country if the locals appropriate the extraction facilities that they have built in order to sell the output to a higher bidder?

There are some real questions about whether the Chinese recognize any form of rights for indigenous populations, and especially for non-Chinese.

 

[ngatimozart]

China does not want Africans, and are not particularly concerned about African markets. What they do want is secure African resources. The question is whether or not they will be willing to share in the global market – i.e. if the locals can get a better price by selling the production to someone else, are the Chinese willing to meet that price? And if the answer is ‘No’, will they attempt to take over the country if the locals appropriate the extraction facilities that they have built in order to sell the output to a higher bidder?

There are some real questions about whether the Chinese recognize any form of rights for indigenous populations, and especially for non-Chinese.

I was up in the Pilbara, Western Australia, a couple of years ago watching iron ore being shipped out 300,000 tonnes at a time. The locals told me that most of it goes to China. There were 12 ore carriers anchored offshore waiting to be loaded and they were loading 4 ships at a time taking 30 hours to load 300,000 tonne per ship. They don't stop - exactly the same set up as oil tankers absolutely minimal time alongside. Since then they have increased the capacity to 6 ships. Thats just 1 port. The Chinese buy coal from the east coast of Australia and NZ plus other places.

You have the crux of the matter. What happens when push comes to shove? What happens when Chinese access to resources is hampered, hindered or halted / refused? How will they react? My thinking is that it will be a carrot and a very big stick because that is how they have reacted historically. They will avoid conflict but if it is unavoidable they will not shrink from it. They don't have the western attachment to the value of human life or human rights viewing it as a weakness. It is a cultural thing and since 1949 political. They follow the tenants of the Sun Tzu Ping Fa of which the 5th and last tenant is armed conflict only to be used if all else fails.

 

[riksavage]

I was up in the Pilbara, Western Australia, a couple of years ago watching iron ore being shipped out 300,000 tonnes at a time. The locals told me that most of it goes to China. There were 12 ore carriers anchored offshore waiting to be loaded and they were loading 4 ships at a time taking 30 hours to load 300,000 tonne per ship. They don't stop - exactly the same set up as oil tankers absolutely minimal time alongside. Since then they have increased the capacity to 6 ships. Thats just 1 port. The Chinese buy coal from the east coast of Australia and NZ plus other places.

You have the crux of the matter. What happens when push comes to shove? What happens when Chinese access to resources is hampered, hindered or halted / refused? How will they react? My thinking is that it will be a carrot and a very big stick because that is how they have reacted historically. They will avoid conflict but if it is unavoidable they will not shrink from it. They don't have the western attachment to the value of human life or human rights viewing it as a weakness. It is a cultural thing and since 1949 political. They follow the tenants of the Sun Tzu Ping Fa of which the 5th and last tenant is armed conflict only to be used if all else fails.

Australia's relationship with China is the same as Sweden's relationship with Germany during WWII - you keep supplying the goods (iron ore, col etc) and you will be left in alone.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Fair enough mate. Although "colonising of Africa" via cheque book is not a definition of colonisation per se. The invasion and subsequent subsumation of Tibet is colonisation in all its forms; marginalisation, alienation, assimilation, subsumation, repression etc. What the PRC is doing in Africa is just resource acquisition without the the physical invasion and cultural repression of the indigenous peoples. Big difference.

Oh, there are virtual Chinese colonies in Africa these days, armies of Chinese workers there building the infrastructure that supports all of their land aquisitions throughout the continent. It's not colonisation as we were taught it to be, but it is one form. The Chinese here, in China seem to believe it's their right and destiny to own and rule the world and as they continue emigrating and breeding, I believe they eventually will, even good old Aotearoa

 

[exported_kiwi]

The PRC will have enough on its plate containing a rapidly expanding population. Trade expansion across Africa is about feeding the aspirations of the country's expanding middle classes - they want 2 x cars, IPADS, washing machines like everyone else.

Historically the most catastrophic events that have impacted China have largely been internal (see list below). That's why they are obsessed with cracking down on any dissent (Tiananmen Square, Falung Gong, Tibet). The Taiping Rebellion was started by a religious cult - the Falun Gong isn't that dissimilar. The Cultural Revolution was driven by students, same as the protest in Tiananmen Square. We may not see a connection, but the PRC old guard might, they may use one to justify heavy handedness to suppress another before the event escalates out of control.

1. An Lushan Rebellion - 33-36 million dead

2. Taiping Rebelion - 20-30 million dead

3. Qing Dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynesty - 25 million dead

4. Yellow Turban Rebellion - 5-7 million dead

5. Great Chinese Famine (caused by Chairman Mao's 'great leap backwards') - 20 - 40 million dead

In the case of 1,2,3 & 5 losses are comparible with those suffered by all nations during WWII

The PRC are already starting to feel the wrath of disgruntled locals in Africa and Pakistan. Only a small group of wealthy local chiefs/community heads tend to benefit, the rest don't. During construction/mining phases labour battalions are all brought in from China and fed and watered by Chinese contractors.

Yep, within China, I witness, on a daily basis, China chuckling with glee at the large swathes of Africa they now "control" and it's planned to ship population to those places as China is now a bit small for the population and current weather patterns wreak havoc on food production etc. Within China, these days, it's becoming too arid, or too polluted for folks to live healthily.