Hacker News Reader

Comment by edmcnulty101 | Hacker News Reader

> Is it racist or just statistics?

Both? The use of "statistics" to make a fundamentally racist argument, that it was right for white colonists to invade black countries, permanently deny them self-government, and maintain this state at gunpoint (e.g 30,000 dead in Zimbabwe)? That remains racist regardless of any other historical fact; it is irrelevant how bad the subsequent Mugabe government has been, or any other black-majority government in Africa.

The colonialism has left significant damage. It is impossible to disentangle how badly various African countries are doing from the fact that they achieved independence relatively recently, and many had substantial interference during the cold war as various communist/anticommunist factions fought it out.

It is important to remember that the "cold" war between the US and the USSR (which also deserves blame) had considerable casualties, it's just that they were outside those two countries.

because the western countries actively dis-stabilizes other countries and continents. Take for example South America and the US

What percentage of the instability in Africa and Latin America in the last 100 years, do you think that western countries caused?

Here's a convenient map for just the US's involvement in Latin America[1]. African countries are harder to quantify due to the number of European powers involved, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of African countries experienced significant instability during the post-colonial period.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

That's an eye opening page.

I wonder if the drug cartels destabilize the region more than United States interference or if the U.S. is more destabilizing?

For example if you did a survey of the people of some of these countries that were destabilized if they think the United States or the drug cartels cause more problems for them.

I wonder what they would say. My suspicions lean towards the drug cartels just reading about how they treat reporters and students and police.

The US, famously, funded many of the early drug cartels and trafficking networks in Latin America as part of its goal of destabilizing Latin American governments[1].

The even more extreme (and somewhat, but not completely, publicly substantiated) claim is that the USG used those illicit funding networks to additionally destabilize minority communities in the US by introducing heroin and "crack" cocaine.

There is no "either/or" with US foreign meddling and drug cartels. They're two sides of the same foreign policy.

Edit: The above focuses on Iran-Contra. Here's a link to broader allegations of drug trafficking/support for cartels in LatAm[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...

You're using isolated incidents from the 60 and 80's to claim the U.S. is responsible for the entire modern multi billion dollar international drug trade?

So to be clear.

The blame is on the U.S. for the entire drug trade.

The blame is on the west for colonialism causing African countries problems in modern times.

The blame is on racial repression for minority groups problems in the U.S.

The trend seems to be that minority groups are at complete mercy of western repression.

Don't they also actively destabilize each other though? I'm not sure why this should be considered the primary cause behind it.

So if both african countries and one of the large most power country actively destabilize a nation. Why would smaller and less powerful nations be the primary cause instead of the big one? but yeah, the one does not rule out the other

Well I just mean that if you look at a country like Poland which has been invaded literally dozens of times, either being severely destabilized or completely conquered in the process but yet is still doing quite well for itself, I don't see how you can solely blame foreign interference for a country's current state.

I mean, look at Ethiopia. Forget Western powers, Ethiopia has never been successfully invaded by any foreign power. Despite this, it is one of the poorest countries on the planet today.

Yes this is a valid point.

It seems to be the prevailing theory that any misfortune befalling these countries is due primarily to the west.

These countries would be thriving without western interference is the claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com