This is sophisticated part of Neo-colonialism and is not just restricted to Africa but to many other former colonies
If people are unhappy with existing books, they should simply create better books.
And even if they are cliche, I suspect the issues mentioned in the article also do exists. Kids with genital mutilation, starving people, elephants being hunted to extinction and so on, they also exist in Africa.
So everybody should also be allowed to write what they want. Of course you are also allowed to call it "neo-colonialism". Whatever.
> If you dont like Google you should create your own Google.
> If you dont like Peppa the Pig, tough luck, create your own.
It's also not even true anymore. Most of the things you listed you can get for free or almost nothing these days.
In threads like this, you should then also be able to point out the really good books that failed because they couldn't find a publisher? Where are they?
Arguable a DIY search engine is impossible on the scale of google because, aside from CPU power and storage, goog gets privileged indexing access.
Everything else seems reasonable to DIY.
To be fair women do harass men, only because the law is written in favour of women.
We are talking about power assymetry and continuing hold on institutions like universities, media and bureaucracy.
I am not finger pointing but people should be aware that these are just a continuing colonial mindset.
Unlike the Nazi party which was disbanded at the end of ww2, a lot of colonialists and colonial institutions like the church got rewarded with vast deposits and land holdings.
And as for your harassment example, the analogy is more like "men are being harassed because all books are only about men harassing women". The complaint is "Africa is being harassed because all books are only about things that are bad in Africa".
The issues exist in Africa, so it should be possible to write about them.
My post being downvoted proves precisely the point, people get triggered by the mention of neo-colonialism.
People on both sides both the colonised and colonisers are programmed to protect the colonisers by all means.
People go to Africa to see wildlife is because they have hunted down every bear, bison and wolf in their own homeland. So you can be the wolf preaching vegetarianism to the sheep.
To frame the modern world in terms of "colonizers" is misleading bullshit.
As for wildlife, what do you want, the right to drive your wildlife to extinction, too? Really? And you would prefer if no tourists come to Africa? Are you sure those are good ideas?
Who is forcing you to tolerate tourists to see African wildlife? Will the "colonizers" come with tanks and airplanes to force the "colonized" to open up their parks for tourists, if people in Africa should decide to shut them down?
In reality, with the lost income from tourism, people would probably resort to eating the wildlife until it is gone, like in other parts of the world. And then you'd be left with nothing.
This a far cry from the constant guilt laid on the shoulders of Germans.
The Germans paid a heavy price but the treasury of the colonies held in British banks went on to pay the pensions of the colonisers.
> As for wildlife, what do you want, the right to drive your wildlife to extinction, too?
If that is how you understood it, you probably need to improve your reading and critical thinking skills.
What I meant is that Europeans whose national boundaries are marked by language, religious denomination, and have (very recent) history of wiping out both wildlife and civilisations should stop being preachy.
A lot of things went in in the past. Didn't humans evolve in Afrika? So I guess the ancestors of todays Africans somehow drove my ancestors away, presumably by stealing their land. Am I owed reparations by Africa now?
"What I meant is that Europeans whose national boundaries are marked by language, religious denomination, and have (very recent) history of wiping out both wildlife and civilisations should stop being preachy."
They are preachy about not killing off your wildlife, so if you say they shouldn't preach about that, it follows logically that you think killing off the wildlife should be OK.
And sorry, but everybody is free to preach about whatever they want. You are free not to listen.
I do not think very many people hold a grudge either. You are just firing all over the place.
My statement is simple, Europeans are used to seeing their colonies as a poorer and miserable mirror image of themselves.
As much as a white evangelist see their recent converts, as a white man's burden.
Except for political independence, colonial institutions and traditions remain the same on both sides. Whether it is the BBC, the labour party, the royalty or the universities their mindset remains in the colonial Era.
There is a clear repulsion to intellectual independence or the ex-colonies developing independent institutions. This revulsion is similar to the one a white evangelist feels when native traditions or religions make a come back and he/she is loosing his/her flock.
And where is the great come back that people are supposedly revulsed by?
I really don't know what point you are trying to make or what your goals are.
Last I heard China is buying up Africa anyway, maybe you'll be more happy with that future.
Maybe just concentrate on feeling less like a victim, and you'll realize your toe is actually finde.
I've been watching you make all sorts of nonsensical arguments in the discussion about TFA, and I wonder what your motivations are?
My goal is simply to counter bad logic and harmful ideologies.
The mis/disinformation is distributed across most English media when enough interests are aligned.
>I don't think you can reasonably assume that all would be well in those regions without foreign interference.
1-2 million innocent civilians would be alive and millions of refugees would be home. Objectively better than the current state.
"1-2 million innocent civilians would be alive and millions of refugees would be home."
How do you know there would have been no war without foreign interference? And people are being murdered and displaced by their fellow countrymen, not simply by foreign powers.
100% true and I qualified that statement. Re-read it perhaps.
I meant post independence, which is the definition of neo-colonisation.
Let us say post-"independence" (political)
Anyway, we from the ex-colonies have a clear understanding of "neo-colonisation"