I personally suspect that if it had not been for Rhodes and people like him, Ntokozo Qwabe (the lead SJW disruptor) would still be in a loin cloth, running barefoot after small game with a sharp stick. Imagine if Africa had been left totally alone, say, due to SJW pressure at the time of world colonization. Had that happened, the world would have been unaware that blacks exist, and vice-versa. In reality, blacks cannot rationally complain about having whites discover and colonize Africa because either they must be better off as they are, or they would return to Africa and re-adopt their ancestral feral ways.
In fact, Ntokozo Qwabe accepted money from the Rhodes bequest in order to attend Oxford. His response to accusations of hypocrisy:
He has argued that the money he received represents "tiny fractions" of what Rhodes "looted" from Africa.Oddly, that which was "looted" was of no use to Africans, who were essentially stone age tribes or barely emerging at the time. What Rhodes was after was primarily diamonds and he started and controlled De Beers. He thought that it was obvious that the white civilization was superior to the black "barbarism", and that the presence of whites would benefit not only blacks, but all indigenous but undeveloped people around the world. He proposed that the British continue their colonization for the benefit of both Britain and the indigines, and yet he prevented blacks from voting by limiting their land ownership, a prerequisite to vote. And he is accused, along with others, of land "grabs" and bloody suppression of insurrections.
The charge of "white supremacy" does seem to apply, and yet the modern sense of "racism" does not seem to exactly fit. De Beers has not trafficked in "blood diamonds", and limited their marketing to their own finds in order to prevent their own sale of any blood diamonds which might infiltrate their wares. The biography of Rhodes is interesting and can be subjectively interpreted in several different ways.
Still, if were not for the ingression of whites the indigenous blacks would still be stone age primitives, and the diamonds would still be in the ground without any value whatsoever to the blacks.
2 comments:
Some of the conclusions in the above are bizarre, such as whites brought technological and infrastructural development to Africa, so therefore Africans have no room to criticize the actions of unscrupulous white businessmen who played a part in the development of their homelands? Nonsense! Whites often took advantage of the Africans, using their relative ignorance against them, then when criticized insisted they only had the best intentions of the Africans at heart, yet denied them voting rights and treated them as a lower class of people. Perhaps the Africans have wised up and realized that becoming 2nd class citizens in their own homelands wasn't ultimately worth what the West gave them in return, mere scraps from the silver platter Britain had loaded up for itself.
Also, it's entirely reasonable for a people to embrace knowledge gifted by an enemy, the US (Paperclip) and the Soviet Union were both eager to acquire scientists and scavenge technological pickings from the defeated Nazis. Medical data gained through cruel experimentation by the Germans was kept rather than burned, distasteful as it was. There was clear benefit to the Allies who "inherited" Nazi science, but we still condemn the Nazis for the horrible things they did rather than praise them for the rocket programs we took as spoils. Insisting that Africans must return to a tribal lifestyle or refrain from criticizing whites and British imperialists is not much different than insisting Westerners (especially Jews, homosexuals etc.)forgo the benefits accrued from various Nazi science programs and use pre 1940s medicine and military tech or keep their mouths shut about the Holocaust. If they've so benefited why not give the Nazis their due?
" Perhaps the Africans have wised up and realized that becoming 2nd class citizens in their own homelands wasn't ultimately worth what the West gave them in return, mere scraps from the silver platter Britain had loaded up for itself."
Africa has been released to the control of the likes of Taylor, Mugabe, Mobutu, none of whom ever were redistributing wealth to the average African. Is Rhodes, Britain and western society to blame? Should they have left Africa alone, rather than intervened? Does it matter to the point that history must be wiped?
Africa was caught in an expansionary period of western history. It happened; it's over. Rather than rewrite history to suit their taste, Africans need to decide if they are going to be western in nature, or if not, exactly what they are going to be.
Africans have exploited each other in much the same sense (if not more brutally) as did the Europeans/British and have produced their own genocides, slavery and blood diamond greed (Taylor, Mugabe, Mobutu, etc.)
Tribalism seems still to be Africa's biggest problem, including the Islamization issue. Making Africa and Africans into official Victims will not help.
Post a Comment