Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Uh, holy shit . . .

****ed up

Sexism in America is more important though.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Sexism in America is more important though.

No one cares about Africa.

The way most people see it, it's just a bunch of Africans whacking off a bunch of other Africans. Sure they'll say "oh, that's terrible", but it's quickly forgotten cos they just realized the server put sugar instead of Splenda in their double not fat soy frappuccino.

the UN has been actively fighting the M23 for a long time now... though it has mostly been in terms of defending places like Goma from being taken by the militants.

I guess this is an escalation, but in Congo, "peacekeeping" has never really been peaceful.

Congo is an object lesson in why borders need to be redrawn all across Africa to reflect actual linguistic and ethnic boundaries rather than arbitrary political ones. But I suspect even that wouldn't solve these kinds of conflicts.

a lot of the issues in Congo now are fallout from the Rwandan genocide. Redrawing the borders might help prevent future such atrocities, but at this point, there is such a history of violence among some groups that I don't think simply giving them land will solve it. Then there is the whole issue with the resource wealth in Eastern DRC...

Anthony Bourdain just visited DR of Congo, this episode was pretty interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/video/shows/anthony-bourdain-parts-unknown/episode8

The sheer amount of separate rebel factions is just confusing and scary.

EDIT: The video on the link is not very good, YouTube would be best for a preview.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Congo is an object lesson in why borders need to be redrawn all across Africa to reflect actual linguistic and ethnic boundaries rather than arbitrary political ones. But I suspect even that wouldn't solve these kinds of conflicts.
How exactly does one go about "redrawing" borders in Africa? You're asking for entire nation-states to be relocated geographically, which is essentially an impossible task unless the whole of Africa actively cooperates, and I don't see that happening.

It's like saying that the India-Pakistan border should be redrawn, just so that it reflects the cultural/linguistic/ethnic boundaries of their respective Punjabs. Easy to write on paper, but essentially impossible in reality.

I agree though that border-reconfiguration wouldn't solve such conflicts.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
How exactly does one go about "redrawing" borders in Africa? You're asking for entire nation-states to be relocated geographically, which is essentially an impossible task unless the whole of Africa actively cooperates, and I don't see that happening.

It's like saying that the India-Pakistan border should be redrawn, just so that it reflects the cultural/linguistic/ethnic boundaries of their respective Punjabs. Easy to write on paper, but essentially impossible in reality.

I agree though that border-reconfiguration wouldn't solve such conflicts.
I'm not saying it would be easy. It would be impossible without international involvement on the level of the original European colonization process or the creation of a new federalized African Union with the power and cohesion to control all constituent nations.

Some redrawing did happen: Bangladesh was originally East Pakistan. It took Soviet pressure and military intervention by India but Pakistan acceded to the split.

In the case of Congo though there's not much to lose regarding a partitioning--the government is so weak without foreign support that it may as well not exist.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Some redrawing did happen: Bangladesh was originally East Pakistan. It took Soviet pressure and military intervention by India but Pakistan acceded to the split.

In the case of Congo though there's not much to lose regarding a partitioning--the government is so weak without foreign support that it may as well not exist.
That was before Pakistan had nuclear weapons, along with the fact that the local populace was more or less discontent with West Pakistan's policies and were willing to cooperate with India during the 1971 war. Not to mention that historically speaking, dividing Bengal was always a problem for the British, so Pakistan's inability to sustain such a partition(and I use that term loosely because of the horrors that most North Indian natives associate with that word) was understandable. Doing the same with Punjab in the modern era is completely different ball game.

Depends on how much additional instability it would cause upon doing so. Imo, Africa will probably end getting even more messed up than it is now were such a move to happen.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
That was before Pakistan had nuclear weapons, along with the fact that the local populace was more or less discontent with West Pakistan's policies and were willing to cooperate with India during the 1971 war. Not to mention that historically speaking, dividing Bengal was always a problem for the British, so Pakistan's inability to sustain such a partition(and I use that term loosely because of the horrors that most North Indian natives associate with that word) was understandable. Doing the same with Punjab in the modern era is completely different ball game.

Depends on how much additional instability it would cause upon doing so. Imo, Africa will probably end getting even more messed up than it is now were such a move to happen.
I think you're confusing Punjabis with Pashtuns--Punjabis make up 40% of Pakistan's population and are probably the best represented ethnic group in the country. I don't know why on Earth there would ever be a Punjab secessionist movement in Pakistan. Pashtuns yes--many of them have joined the Pakistani Taliban to fight against the central government.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood your point and you mean a redrawing where all Indian panjabis become Pakistani. The thing is that there's not really much demand for that. The biggest problem that India has in its Punjab region are Sikh nationalists who have no interest in becoming part of Pakistan, and that movement isn't that strong anymore.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think you're confusing Punjabis with Pashtuns--Punjabis make up 40% of Pakistan's population and are probably the best represented ethnic group in the country. I don't know why on Earth there would ever be a Punjab secessionist movement in Pakistan. Pashtuns yes--many of them have joined the Pakistani Taliban to fight against the central government.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood your point and you mean a redrawing where all Indian panjabis become Pakistani. The thing is that there's not really much demand for that. The biggest problem that India has in its Punjab region are Sikh nationalists who have no interest in becoming part of Pakistan, and that movement isn't that strong anymore.
Because of common linguistic and cultural boundaries with Indian Punjab? Nobody is suggesting a secessionist movement. The basis for my argument is your claim that there is a need to re-establish borders in Africa simply to reflect the ethnic and linguistic boundaries, which essentially applies to Punjab as well.

I am well aware of the existence of the Akali Dal, and how it in no way represents Sikh nationalism. Unless you're referring to the defunct Khalistan Movement, which has remained defunct for the last several decades, I don't what that is about. And my point isn't really about that either, as the above paragraph demonstrates.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Because of common linguistic and cultural boundaries with Indian Punjab? Nobody is suggesting a secessionist movement. The basis for my argument is your claim that there is a need to re-establish borders in Africa simply to reflect the ethnic and linguistic boundaries, which essentially applies to Punjab as well.

My argument isn't that we need to redraw boundaries simply because the colonial powers didn't color inside the ethno-linguistic lines. My argument is that there is need for redrawing because the arbitrary boundaries have forced disparate tribes and peoples without common identity to become countries, and this has in turn caused conflict, in many cases bloody conflict.

I wouldn't advocate an independent Welsh state because (to my knowledge) Welsh people are happy being British citizens. I'm not arguing that part of Mississippi become an independent nation for black Americans because a large portion of its population is black. I don't think anyone needs to redraw the borders of Finland and Sweden just because there are Sami people on both sides. You admit there's no real armed conflict or even large-scale ethnic tensions at the moment in Panjab, so that comparison falls flat.

I do however advocate an independent Kurdish state because there's clearly a lot of tension and Kurds are being oppressed in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and (not as much anymore, but it's still there) Iraq.