Why does tribal affiliation still hold so much weight in Africa despite them also having formed nation states, but in Europe it has become completely meaningless?Are Africans in a transformation where citizenship will matter more than tribe?
>>16804709Because not everyone is a cuck like Europeans.
>>16804709Tribal relations were broken down by force in Europe but by the time decolonisation came in people only believed their side of history was just and good and that's why it won therefore it couldn't have used force to break down anything because only evil uses force or some retarded thing like that. They also trusted too much in the constructivist account on nation-formation. Mix these two together and you get people who forcefully take away the neutral arbiters(colonists) from African political landscape and yet are unwilling to build strong dictatorships capable of breaking down the tribal ties. No the African nations have to be democratic, says the UN. They then fail at democracy and the dictatorship is given to someone who's tribal faction won one coup or another, who has much less of a nation-building vision than a dictator UN could've appointed if they weren't too jewish in their thinking.
>>16804709>Why does tribal affiliation still hold so much weight in Africa despite them also having formed nation statesPolitics is still huge and at this point has crossed ethnic lines. Also many ethnic groups are not that uniform or within the same borders.>Are Africans in a transformation where citizenship will matter more than tribe?A decent passport is all that matters.>in Europe it has become completely meaningless?They still have cliques and class seperation/differentiation.
>>16805987>Tribal relations were broken down by force in EuropeLmao not even close. They were still there and power made use of them. The idea they "forcibly broke them" makes no sense.>Mix these two together and you get people who forcefully take away the neutral arbiters(colonists)Lmao nothing is ever neutral. Like how do you even define "neutral" in this context?>No the African nations have to be democratic, says the UNMany prefer democracy over a dictatorship. No one like Mobutu Sese Seko or post 2000 Mugabe.>They then fail at democracy and the dictatorship is given to someone who's tribal faction won one coup or another, who has much less of a nation-building vision than a dictator UN could've appointed if they weren't too jewish in their thinking.Kenyans are literally protesting Ruto's ramp up of taxation right now
>>16806007>Lmao not even close. They were still there and power made use of them. The idea they "forcibly broke them" makes no sense.The carlist and jacobite wars, the french revolution, Mussolini's anti-mafia efforts, all sorts of policies rolled under "fighting banditry" are parts of tribe busting. They did survive in places like the Balkans because for most of the 17th to 20th century they weren't under the iron fist of heavily centralised government.>Lmao nothing is ever neutral. Like how do you even define "neutral" in this context?An Englishman doesn't care Bunga Unga tribe has 400 years old feud with Durka Dinka tribe and arguments about someone's great grandfather stealing their great grandfather's cattle as a revenge for stealing his niece to marry her will not impress them. They care about peace and order in the colony(for their own benefit) so they will work out a compromise between both tribes and this has historically happened. Then you take these Englishmen away and the "democratic" politics just so happens to nicely split through the tribal lines. >Many prefer democracy over a dictatorship. No one like Mobutu Sese Seko or post 2000 Mugabe.You mean the totally gonna be democratic politician well educated Mobutu(western presses opinions, not mine) and the democratic socialist fighting the evil britishers and boers, Mugabe? I have some doubts about your honesty right now.>Kenyans are literally protesting Ruto's ramp up of taxation right nowPopular protests always have interest groups behind them(and are mostly astroturfed, if they aren't they fail), I have no access to good news about the protests but I'd wager the protesters and the government differ in tribal composition.
>>16806066>An Englishman doesn't care Bunga Unga tribe has 400 years old feud with Durka Dinka tribe and arguments about someone's great grandfather stealing their great grandfather's cattle as a revenge for stealing his niece to marry her will not impress themBut they did. His do yiu describe Britain heavily favoring the Arabized Sudanese in the North vs the South Sudanese.>They care about peace and order in the colony(for their own benefit) so they will work out a compromise between both tribes and this has historically happened.Lmao they often picked sides. How do you even say this dumb shit. Especially when some groups were often neglected or targetted.>Popular protests always have interest groups behind them(and are mostly astroturfed, if they aren't they failWhat interest groups? The people were being taxed again with most being unable to take it. How is that a special interest group?>I'd wager the protesters and the government differ in tribal compositionNot really. Politics is pretty diverse, the protesters are akao extremely diverse and cross all the ethnic lines
>Why does tribal affiliation still hold so much weight in Africa despite them also having formed nation states, but in Europe it has become completely meaningless?Why do you call your ethnic groups “ethnic groups” but you call our ethnic groups “tribes”?That aside, not all states are equivalent to ethnic nations. Our states emerged in reaction to the common experience of Western imperialism. >Are Africans in a transformation where citizenship will matter more than tribe?No. Not for a long long time. Nigeria is on track to become black Lebanon in the 80s. We only use national identities on a meaningful level when dealing with non-Africans, in the diaspora, or communicating on a pan-African political scale.
>>16806113>Nigeria is on track to become black Lebanon in the 80s.That's more like Ethiopia.
>>16806113>>Why do you call your ethnic groups “ethnic groups” but you call our ethnic groups “tribes”?You know why that anon called them that lol
>>16806132Nah. The religious dimension is MUCH stronger in Nigeria. Ethiopia is getting the Austria-Hungary treatment.
>>16804709>tribal affiliation means you get to dress up in colorful cultural clothing>give that all up to become the 145th best nation state in the worldthe choice is clear
>>16806113
You can only form attachments to nation states if they are strong and influential in at least some kind of positive way to your lifeThe tribal areas of Africa still mostly rely on said tribes to help their own to even survive. The state government isn’t building them their wells or roads. The state government is corrupt as fuck and usually favours one ethnic group over another.Add on to this. Africans didn’t really make their own nation states. The most powerful local warlords simply took over the existing apparatus of the European colonial borders.Back when this was just a colony it worked better because European colonial administrators were not pretending this was some modern country. They existed solely to defend the area militarily, settle disputes within the territory, and of course to extract resources for the home nation.After this, the new rulers mostly just became petty dictators making money for themselves rather than improving the state of the nation.
>>16804709Ultimately because it was painstakingly beaten down, dissolved and expelled by european states in the centuries before the advent of the current years. Most of Africa had statecraft hoisted upon it by europeans, by no means are they stable, effective or particularly agressive in their modernization efforts (which will, as a rule, entail agressive displacement and the dissolution of minorities).>Are Africans in a transformation where citizenship will matter more than tribe?In the stabler places, yes. But it's slow and takes time. In some others the ethnic conflict is still going on without much interuption.>>16806113>Why do you call your ethnic groups “ethnic groups” but you call our ethnic groups “tribes”?Ultimately because very few people outside of the Balkans have killed eachother because of them. Among other things. Being german is not actually that important to a german nowadays, neither is it for an Italian. No one in western europe (except maybe a particularly deranged 80 Y/O Ulsterman and even then it's kind of far fetched) is willingly going to even imagine, much less make something like "Fulanization" by Mr PRO. >That aside, not all states are equivalent to ethnic nations. True, but you don't see the Spaniards kill eachother over their ethnicity. And their state emerged as a fusion of two feudal polities in marriage.>Our states emerged in reaction to the common experience of Western imperialism.Your states were set up by western Imperialism pulling out* They emerged from a colonial administrators ass. A few of them are doing a decent job, I'll admit.
