Why did Pan-Africanism fail? Why did Africans start killing each other in wars, genocides, and coups after the end of colonialism instead of uniting together?
N
>>16833942africans do not have the political skill or organizational capacity to form large civilizational nations.I think the cut off is Northern Europe and only the Germans have come close to a civilizational state.China put it together naturally. Apollonians managed something similar albeit it was very violent and fell apart within a few generations.india's was put together by the British and fractured already into four indian states with one mega state.The British Empire never lost its English character even as it was administered by jews.I dont think many people have this ability, as only three groups in historically indigenously produced a civilization state.obviously africans who have trouble with normal states arent going to put together something to rival china or Germany.
I
>>16833942Pan-Africanism is as fucking retarded as something like Pan-Asianism. Contrary to what leftist faggots think, diversity does not produce unity or strength, and Africa is way, WAY too ethnically, religiously, linguistically, culturally, and geographically diverse to EVER be united in any sense.
G
>>16833942wait until you find out that it wasn't white people who enslaved black people, but black people who enslaved black people and then sold them to white people on the west coast of africa
Why did pane européanisme fail? Why can’t white people go a decade without brutally slaughtering their brothers while they become replaced in their own countries?
>>16833997>it wasn't white people who enslaved black peopleBut they did? They bought the slaves?>black people who enslaved black people and then sold them to white people on the west coast of africaIt's more complex than that. Especially when yiu consider the early years of Euro coastal raids, employing mixed race middlemen and captures, flooding the markets with guns and empowering privat traders to steam roll out of control. Local powers did do slavery but the coastal forts and product/gun dumping did not help lol.
>>16833949>africans do not have the political skill or organizational capacity to form large civilizational nations.Ethiopia, Egypt? Several West Africa empires? What do you even define the as "large civilizational nations"? Is Australia one?>obviously africans who have trouble with normal states arent going to put together something to rival china or Germany.Their pretty young states. It took the US and Canada 100+ years to actually start being standalone relevant entities.
>>16833942Africa is a very large continent.
bump
>>16833942Ultimately because pan-africanism is a meme ideology originally created by the black equivalent of Latin Americans. And then retro-actively applied into a continent woefully unprepared for taking on modernity. You could also argue independence was handled terribly, but whatever.
>>16833942"Africans" had nothing in common and they never had anything in common. The only thing they might possibly have in common was they wanted the Europeans to leave, but not even that was true because many Africans were profiting off European involvement. As such the old arrangement reemerged under a different form where the freed Africans used their "sovereignty" to make deals with western corporations with the caveat that European governments were no longer paying for infrastructure or other improvements anymore. The process became entirely extractive because ultimately this was what the African leaders wanted.
>>16834688Yeah the Portuguese started with coastal raids but Europe's coastline was constantly being raided by the Moroccans a well. A major difference here is that European countries began paying off the Barbary Pirates to stop them from raiding whereas the African countries started trying to get the Europeans to pay them to buy slaves instead of stealing slaves. >"Hey you aren't going to just come and take our people to your plantation to work until they die - without paying for them"
>>16833942No pan-culture movement has succeeded. The closest we had to succesful pan-culture movement is pan-arabism and pan-slavism (but only in the sense of Yugoslavism), and both collapsed. One into fascism and theocracy the other into reciprocal ethnic cleansing.Pan-scandinavism collapsed when faced with outside challenge in 1864, and pan-turkism is a just a forum for crank pseudoscientific theories.Pan-Africanism faces all the same challenges of those movements with the added difficulties of all its initial proponents and ideological developers not being Africanand having no real connection to Africa, and there not being any actual grain of common culture, ethnicity, language or shared history that a nationalist project can latch on to.Sure pan-turks may be full of shit, but at least the people spewing it ARE TURKISH, Marcus Garvey was from Jamaica, he was parading around declaring himself president of Africa IN NEW YORK.Right now the closest there is to a pan africanist vanguard is the African Union, a joke of an organizatiom where business is conducted in Arabic, English and French and the last person to even attempt a call for actual inification through that organizatiom was not a pan africanist but was a pan arabist.Africa as a continent has over a thousand languages even by relatively conservative estimates, and little shared culture except foreign exploration, but it's nkt even the same exploiters, and you can't bridge thousands upon thousands of years of distinct cultural identities with spite at the white/different brown people (Eapecially when pan africanism would also necessarily include some of those brown people).It's absurd.
