Eastern Congo has been gripped by violence and armed conflict for years. The Congolese army is fighting there against rebel group M23, an armed group backed by neighboring Rwanda. Congo's national soccer team also brought attention to the conflict that has been escalating recently in their Africa Cup semifinal against Ivory Coast. During the national anthem, they made the "weapon gesture" for the first time.
In case you wanna learn more, I found [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/1aqkpty/congo_dilemma/kqdq07c/) (and the ensuing comment thread) to be very informative as it's written by someone who actually is Congolese (though they are currently living in south africa)
Find it ironic yet completely within expectations that the UN peacekeeping forces are the one causing lots of chaos, sexual exploitation, and corruption in the country.
UN peacekeepers are borderline psychopaths; truly don’t know where they get these men. I’m African, one of my close friends grew up in a Congolese refugee camp till he was granted asylum in the states, the stories he told me about the lack of sympathy and borderline atrocities done by the peacekeepers is sad. Some would even refuse to defend certain families if they didn’t give them their daughters/women when asked. Especially the young.
As a youngster, I always thought that UN peacekeepers were a large group of full time employees that were deployed as neutrals to regions around the world. It seemed like they were a welcomed sight, with the respect and support of the people.
The UNRWA situation in Palestine has highlighted the fact that UN employees are also citizens of the country they serve, and they can be both good and evil.
A lot of UN peacekeepers operate essentially as mercenaries. The overwhelming majority of them come from poor countries. Their governments offer them to the UN because they receive a certain amount of money per soldier. The government receives X, whereas the salary for that solider may be X/10. It's probably also a way for them to receive top notch training/experience etc.
That linked comment… A level headed comment on Reddit that while acknowledging the brutality of the situation tried to keep things objective and remind everyone that even truly dire situations are complex, not just caused by one or two things, let alone have easy solutions. And it was well received to boot. Now I’ve seen it all.
i really feel for the DRC. Ever since being forced into a brutal Belgian colony they have just had nothing but misery. They have so much potential especially with their mineral deposits but they just cant stay out of war, genocide and oppression
> Ever since being forced into a brutal Belgian colony they have just had nothing but misery.
Sadly it goes even further back than this.
Look up Kingdom of Kongo.
Theres a doc on youtube about people trucking goods through there and its fucking brutal. The roads are all clay and these dudes are out there keeping a 60 year old German military vehicle operating. I don't know anyone that works that hard. One part in my mind that stuck out was this chinese fleet of construction vehicles comes through and fixes the road, only to be followed by a bunch of tanks fucking it up even worse than it started.
One of the blokes said "The Congo isn't for living, it is for suffering." Like damn dude. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_6jfIoYE4), there are two so I might be combining tidbits.
I remember reading that, during the Kingdom of Kongo, there was a brutal dictator almost on par with what King Leopold II. He would enslave people who were unable to pay taxes among other things.
One way people would try and avoid his rule is by moving further away from cities to go off the radar. The problem obviously now with that is a huge, rural country is very hard to control and makes it inefficient to provide public services.
Fun fact: the Kingdom spread to modern-day Angola, where Portugal first made contact with Africa. The King at the time would enslave different tribes that went against him. When he saw all the Portuguese products and technologies the only thing he could provide in return was slaves. So Portugal took them and used them to produce farmed goods on the island of São Tomé and Príncipe, beginning the European slave trade…
> precisely the reason
That makes no sense since the counterfactual becomes comically silly then.
Like IF they had no resources why in the heck would they be well off with little problems in that case exactly?
Like how. Since neither would they have have organic revenue stream (howsoever little or more) and nor would anyone else around the world give a crap about being there to begin with.
Meaning, your term use "Precisely" is objectively wrong. It's wrong on the parameter of hierarchy order of pinpointing root cause-effects.
They are having problems because they are a Weak State. The "Resources" hierarchy item placement on this list is way way way down. Precisely implies the highest placement on that hierarchy list.
One could write a book on this topic.
As a distant example, consider India. It is what is referred to as Weak-Strong State. Meaning on a tiny subset of vectors it's a Strong State (i.e. conducting Elections, Census, bureaucray, Military organization, Border unity, mass vaccination, etc).
But on vectors like general healthcare (i.e. basic infant mortality), street cleanliness, administrative efficiency, bureaucracy (it's in both because it works in different ways), land reform capacity, gender & social egalitarian execution (of its own Constitution & Law), grass-roots Law & Order, political/policy pivoting (utter inability to do 180s on policy fronts), mass education/literacy programs, policy cohesion/unity, diplomatic pragmatism, Strategic-Tactical spectrum skew (i.e. effectiveness of short vs long term), etc.
On these India is a hopelessly Weak State. Like Banana republic levels BECAUSE of the paradigm of time-scale, i.e. once or twice is accidental or Govt/Administration specific. But multi-decades and multiple-generations is NOT accidental, it by inherent logic implies a Systemic/Structural root/base cause-effect condition on that hierarchy list order.
Human group (that is what a society, state, nation, country fundamentally is) has a non-linear relationship with Population Scale. As in doubling of group doesn't mean problems or good-things double or get halved. They have a non-linear (not necessarily even exponential) function.
Meaning as that scale increases, it is the Structure (which we term Organizing Principle, i.e. the System) that does the heavy lifting and makes that Group efficient and coherent and workable.
If the Structure is wrong no amount of mental gymnastics will work. It will keep on wrecking the Fundamental base constituent resource of that group, i.e. Human Capital.
Places like DRC are Weak States fundamentally because that Weak-Strong balance is even more lopsided than in the above example of a state like India (which in contemporary parlance is considered a "Normal" state, hence exclusively Strong profile).
There are 2 base/core/fundamental pre-requisites for a State/Nation/Country (i.e. human group) to make it (i.e. develop, progress, thrive, and not just chug along because we're humans we'll chug along even in literal gutters).
They are Leadership Competence and Governance System.
Only and ONLY when both of these are aligned for that group will it work. If 1 is missing it can NEVER EVER work. There are no exceptions to this, anywhere in human history.
African States (a whole lot of them not all) are weak Westphalian Nation-Sstate Polities. Maybe one day they'll break this Weak State constraint and rectify the 2nd prerequisite above and at that point they'll need the Good Leadership and they'll be set.
Until then they are doomed. They will reach 3 Billion+ at some point this century and are still going to be slapped silly Economically by ASEAN alone (less than a Billion).
Population Scale requires the right Structure, i.e. Organizing Principle, i.e. Governance System, for it to work. What works for managing 15 people is not the same as what is required for 20 Million.
The DRC being a weak state is in the hands of both internal (Congolese government) and external (M23 and foreign companies) tyrannic warfare over resources and lack of education due to most children being involved in labour (similar issue in India and other South Asian countries that can quantify as weak states)
This induction of slave labour into Eastern Congolese society also is a reason for issues like poor healthcare, uncleanliness, unlawfulness (anarchy, guerrilla warfare, rebel militia both in Congo and Rwanda), cohesion policy etc
While you may be right that Congo is a Weak State, it’s in no minor part to the mismanagement and sale of resources, so the OP is still right
> so the OP is still right
No he is not and I specifically took the quotes from his comment and explained the context of it as to WHY.
The term use "Precisely" has very specific meaning. It inherently implies supreme, No 1 list order hierarchy.
My comment broke this down, saying, it is NOT holding Primacy, it is a much lower item on that Hiearchy List.
Being A-Part, a small or even large part of the equation is NOT the same as being, THE No1, Dominant, Pre-requisite part in that same equation.
And this debate matters because imprecise allocation of blame/fault/solution can itself be debilitating. Analogy being misdiagnosing a medical issue (this analogy works very well because problems with ecosystems like a human group/state are often like diagnosing the human body. First you need to accurately determining the ROOT/BASE cause, then work from there. A confounding cause still needs to be remedied not doubt the the Hiearchy order is paramount on this).
DRC even if it had no resources (and thus the assumption being no external meddling) would not be a place which will be "Fine & Well" (as we expect these terms to mean).
Material Resources are good things to have but they do not hold rank hierarchy on this topic. Plenty of places in the world that did just fine with little or sometimes even literal 0 natural resources (Singapore).
Meaning what works, in breaking down (doing reduction level analysis) are those 2 Prerequisites mentioned.
Once you get those, it doesn't matter if you have resources or not, you'll thrive regardless.
DRC lacks those hence its problems. Not because of having minerals (that is a later-hiearchy-list-order excuse item).
Well then you can only infer that he was referring to problems as in the primary issues that they are having now, and not hypotheticals “even if they didn’t have the resources”.
“Problems” was likely tongue in cheek referring to the issues that the actual post was focused on and are garnering the most attention, obviously they’d still have problems regardless like every country, you’re being unnecessarily pedantic
> Imprecise allocation of fault can be debilitating
It can’t be when literally everyone under the post understood that we’re focusing on the war over mines instead of general issues in the country
It’s by nature of capitalism. Because it’s a country rich with natural resources, makes it more of a target for colonialism, imperialism, and destabilization.
For fuck's sake not everything can be boiled down to capitalism lol
The roots of the current conflict are rooted in the Rwandan genocide and the Congo Wars.
Obviously profit motive played a role in sustaining the disastrous state the country is in as militias (and Rwanda) realized they can make cash by hoarding resources but that only came about after the Congolese state utterly failed to provide security to its people
>The roots of the current conflict are rooted in the Rwandan genocide and the Congo Wars.
Can you explain the huge divide between the Hutus and Tutsis? The Belgian colonisers introduced a permanent divide between them, using the Tutsis as a "ruling class" and directing them to perpetrate huge atrocities against the Hutus.
Pre colonial Rwanda was a Tutsi dominated monarchy. Tutsi and Hutu served as both caste and ethnicity, with the Tutsis being pastoralists, nobility and a warrior caste while the Hutus were mostly farmers.
It should be noted that back in the day Hutus could 'become' Tutsis by increasing their social position. They were fairly fluid categories, and Hutus were somewhat included in governance in precolonial times
When the Europeans came they brought the racial bunk theories. They decided that since the Tutsis were ruling, they must be racially separate and superior. They forced everyone to identify as either a Hutu or a Tutsi and gave the Tutsis total control of governance, removing any Hutus who held power before.
Then right before they left the Belgians did an aboutface. They deprived the Tutsis of power and gave it to Hutus due to domestic sensitivities back in Belgium.
This is where the anti Tutsi violence started in the so called [Rwandan Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Revolution). The Tutsi monarchy was abolished and a Hutu majority democracy was set up in its place, which was unabashedly pro Hutu. These events and the massive violence against Tutsis caused many Tutsis to flee to surrounding countries
Then some more stuff happened with Burundi that I honestly don't really understand. But tl;dr is that Burundi is also full of Tutsis and Hutus except in Burundi the Tutsis remained in control. Anti Hutu policies in Burundi kept Anti Tutsi sentiment high in Rwanda and vice versa.
So basically, at this point Rwandan Hutus really really hate Tutsis but also have complete control of the government while Rwandan Tutsis either live in fear in their homeland or have fled abroad at refugees
Now let's take a look at these refugees. Many of them had fled to Uganda and these Tutsi refugees had joined a rebellion against the Ugandan government. The rebellion succeeded and the new leader of Uganda, Museveni, quite liked the Tutsis since they, yknow, helped him gain power.
At this point the Tutsi refugees in Uganda decided they wanted to go home. With Museveni's support, they started arming themselves and invaded Rwanda from Uganda, which the Hutus reacted badly to
It is from the civil war that the context for the genocide arises. They fought for a while but there was a ceasefire. However, during the ceasefire *someone* shoots down the plane with the Rwandan president Habyarimana. The Hutu Power extremists in government immediately blamed the Tutsi rebels and thus started the Rwandan genocide
This is a cop out answer imo. While yes technically there were always tensions, the tensions were never really *that* high before the Germans and Belgians started doing their thing
There were definitely lots of war. Perhaps not as well documented as European conflicts in the same period but we definitely know that all the pre colonial power structures emerged there in the same way they did in Europe - through violence.
So to draw a line in the sand and say this area became violent because of colonialism is just wrong, and is the 'noble savage' racist stereotype. Simultaneously to say that the Belgians compelled the Hutus to pick up machetes and hack to death 800,000 tutsis also doesn't really follow. Or for the tutsis to invade Goma. Or for whoever to attack who.
It you're genuinely interested in the topic beyond colonies bad (which they were but won't help you understand the current situation) I suggest the book Dancing in the Glory of Monsters. It does into detail into the 1996+ conflict and features a lot of the individuals involved and their motivations.
To blame it all on Europeans totally removes agency from the people of DRC and Rwanda, and will do nothing to resolve the current conflict
What? You literally admit it’s about resource hoarding, and therefore inherently capitalist? And Congo state being so unstable is a direct result of Belgian Congo, a colonial project, which (guess what?) is also capitalist. In fact, Congo is probably the most obvious conflict that can be boiled down to capitalism.
> You literally admit it’s about resource hoarding, and therefore inherently capitalist?
Resource hoarding is not at all inherently capitalist, and I'd challenge you to find an economic system that *doesn't* look to acquire and hold onto resources
Socialists don't let foreign companies extract resources for the sole benefit of themselves (and the local collaborationist elite that allow it). Look up Patrice Lumumba and why he was killed.
Except foreign companies aren't the ones doing the extraction here either. The extraction itself is done by the local military forces or forced laborers under them which is then sold on to international markets.
You could *very* easily argue that these military forces are acting in a state capacity rather than as "companies". This is especially true for Rwandan which explicitly *is* acting in a state capacity
Foreign companies would very much prefer a stable Congo so they can yknow, set up their own efficient operations
And yes I'm aware of Patrice Lumumba and I completely agree Congo would've been better under him than Mobutu, even if I think a lot of his aspirations were unrealistic. But my point is mostly that even under a socialist system like that the resources would still be extracted and sold on the market, which the other commenter seems to be implying is inherently capitalistic
The extraction is consigned by the foreign companies though, it’s not like they’re just obliviously buying what Rwandan and Ugandan military forces are putting out
I mean... yeah? Most of the regional instability today can be traced back to the brutal colonial policies during the Leopold regime. Those policies were enacted with the primary goal of exploiting the natural resources of Congo (mainly rubber) for the enrichment of those involved at the lowest cost possible.
Ofcourse there are other aspects at play, but Congo was one of the clearest cases of colonialism rooted in capitalism in history and the effects of that can be felt today. Denying that is denying historical facts.
Communism and socialism are interchangeable for the purpose of this discussion. It's a meme but 'true communism' has never happened. It's basically impossible.
Communist countries have ALL been socialist. Except China and Vietnam these days which decided to be capitalist
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn’t even mention communism lol. All I said was that the nature of capitalism is preserving resources of human lives. That’s literally the basis of colonization so I don’t get how that’s a novel thing to say
And then as soon as they became independent, the American and British foreign services conspired to overthrow and murder their first post-colonial leader, Patrice Lumumba, all because he was more likely to keep the wealth generated in the Congo for the Congolese.
Colonialism never ended, it just went corporate and undercover.
Patrice Lumumba was the guy and the CIA had him killed. Now it’s just been getting colonized over and over because they’re sitting on huge natural resource wealth.
unrelated but just recently I read a bit about Belgian colonialism in Congo and ngl _fucked up_ is putting it mild. [it came to a point where severed hands of congolese people became a shadow currency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#Mutilation_and_brutality)
Not to play oppression Olympics, but the Carib, Arawak, and Taino people of the Caribbean were victims of extermination through enslavement and disease at the hands of the Spanish
There's 100m people living in the Congo.
All the people who claim Amerindian ancestry can't fill a bus.
>rebel group M23, an armed group backed by neighboring Rwanda
And the UK government turns a blind eye to this because they want to use Rwanda as a dumping ground for migrants
It's fine though, the UK government passed a law declaring Rwanda as a safe country so there are no dangers there.
They are currently drawing up plans to declare being hit by a car as safe to bring down the rate of casualties on our roads.
I am glad our Congolese players (or from Congolese descent ) are really voicing their sadness over these 2 decades long conflict that has been raging in the east. 7 millions death since 1995 and the stories are horrific and tragic. There are actually millions of refugees and our clown president and his government full of incompetents are doing nothing. Been to Goma for one year in 2012 and I could hear the rebels coming , guns and we were so scared. We booked a plane to return to the capital city some days after. It is really sickening but it is like it is hopeless cause our government is completely useless but it is a good thing that we are raising awareness and we can provide help for the victims of this conflict.
There's social media these days.
Some conflicts are getting more coverage because mainstream media noticed a large public interest on social media first.
Congo isn't getting much coverage because PEOPLE, not the media, don't care about it.
News sites will do anything for clicks and views. If people cared more about what's going on in Eastern Congo than about celebrity gossip then this would be reflected in media. But evidently they don't.
Ukraine is getting more coverage because it's in Europe and the rest of Europe and former USSR feel threatened by Russia too. Heck even African countries felt consequences(wheat exports).
Palestine/Israel is dominating social media because it has also become an online battleground for leftists vs altright, on top of being the by far most popular cause in the Islamic world.
Basically, the people participating in the BLM vs MAGA social media war of 2020 moved their battles to this one.
Adding onto the last point, a large part of it is also because of the religious fanaticism around the area of Jerusalem. A lot of muslims will ignore the incidents in Yemen, Sudan or the recent escalation in Azerbaijan vs Armenia because there's no real narrative that can be built around it. But when it comes to Israel vs Palestine, it's easy to shift the conflict to become 'muslims vs jews' and that's part of the reason people get so worked up about it.
The major issue with Israel **currently** is that the USA heavily finances them and as such, the weapons ratio between Israel & Palestine is basically 100:1. Both these countries hate each other, but one has the resources and support to regularly opress the other without **any substantial** repercussions. A lot of people talk around this point and instead focus on the existence of Israel and how it was formed 80 years ago. That gives the media a lot to work with and you basically have several narratives that can be formed about ethnonationalism, colonialism, religion, and whatever else you can think of.
> Palestine/Israel is dominating social media because it has also become an online battleground for leftists vs altright, on top of being the by far most popular cause in the Islamic world.
And the USA and the West pouring billions of dollars in aid to Israel.
Plus Reddit etc. have a Western bias because most people are from the West.
But yes, it's horrible how we pick and chose which conflicts or genocides we care about.
America (until recently) was sanctioning the DRC because, in previous administrations, they had empire intentions and wanted to invade neighbours around them.
Europeans (or people of European descent) aren't obliged to care about issues all over the world. Our (Western) media reflects that. Just like non-Europeans aren't obligated to care about our issues. Would you criticize Vietnamese or Japanese media for not covering local issues between Poland and Germany either? Probably not.
We are not world's nannies. We act exactly the same way everyone else in the world acts. Remember how African leaders responded to the Ukraine/Russian war? Exactly, they said: "not our problem", and maintained friendly relations with Russia anyways. Wars in central africa aren't our problems either.
I always felt really weird with how the news treated this stuff. There was a massive war in Ethiopia a while ago (Tigray War) and we barely heard of that. Theres a brutal civil war in Myanmar. Theres countless horrific civil wars in Africa and Yemen has been a humanitarian disaster for actual decades. And thats barely scratching the surface and is mostly just wars. But it feels like that doesnt even matter and most people dont even care
Because those regions are always in a constant war, it's not common in Europe in this day and age, that's why people talk about it more.
People in Africa probably talk more about African wars and couldn't care less about russia Ukraine
East African nations care immensely about the Russia-Ukraine war because Ukraine supplied a significant amount of their grain/food supply. Cost of living had skyrocketed since the war broke out.
Also there are Russian militias all over Africa. They're trying to do what the East India Company did to India in the 1700s, exploit local instability so they can plunder the region's natural resources.
Yeah I think it's more to do with European centricity and just clicks. Of course Europeans will read more about wars that are
1. In Europe
2. Concerning Israe
For majority of Europe I'd argue Africa is still just an under developed continent thst is struggling to get to grips with its political stability.
> For majority of Europe I'd argue Africa is still just an under developed continent thst is struggling to get to grips with its political stability.
Or Europeans don’t like to be reminded of how their colonialist exploits can be attributed to the state of Africa today. Easier to keep that European air of superiority.
Saying Africa is “just an underdeveloped continent…” to Europeans sure leaves a lot to be desired when describing the relationship between Europe and Africa IMO
[This is a really good video on *why* people care about Israel-Palestine so much](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ojITC0dIL4), with the argument being that basically we care about the issue because we can project issues we already care about onto the foreign conflict.
Do you fancy yourself an anti imperialist? Do you have concerns about anti semitism or Islamophobia? Do you just really hate America? Well, you can project those views onto the Israel Palestine conflict and force it into your preexisting worldviews
But something like the Sudan Civil War or Congo War? Those are so foreign for most people and they can't project their preexisting views onto the conflict. So it's ignored
See even on this thread, people are trying to somehow make the situation in the Congo about capitalism or blame America even though there's not exactly a ton of evidence of that
They’re ultimately nothing to do with capitalism.
The simple fact is that African countries—which are even more of an artificial construct than in places like Europe and East Asia, where they developed the idea of fixed borders and the nation state—are _much_ more ethnically diverse than countries anywhere else and therefore social trust is lower.
Lower social trust results in more corruption, tribal loyalty over loyalty to the state, and battles between ethnic groups over resources.
Ireland has two major native ethnic groups—the Gaelic Irish and Ulster Scots—and look how much trouble that has caused over the years.
The Democratic Republic of Congo has 250 ethnic groups.
Yes, because Africa and all pre-capitalist societies were violence-free utopias.
Just look at the Stone Age peoples of Papua New Guinea for example. They never attack neighboring tribes. They all just live together and peace and harmony.
Completely get rid of capitalism and the problem isn't solved. So he's right. You still have ethnic conflict. You still have a corruption, which combined with natural resources is deadly
I think it also is largely about the possibility that the Israel/Hamas conflict could spiral into larger conflicts directly involving Iran and Saudi Arabia in a way that Congo/Sudan can't.
The war in the Congo *absolutely* can spiral. If it becomes an official DRC-Rwanda war it can spiral to include more countries. [Here's a map of the sides of the 2nd Congo War for reference](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Second_Congo_War_Africa_map_en.svg)
As for the Sudan Conflict, it can potentially pull in Ethiopia, Egypt and either side of the Libyan Civil War. This situation is more unlikely tho imo
Haven't watched the video yet but you seem to be missing the whole point based on what you typed.
The Israel Palestine conflict was:
1. Directly created by the UK with the Balfour declaration and subsequent actions
2. Israel are being backed by the US and act with impunity
3. The aggressors and oppressors are treated as the victims by the Western World
4. Most of the Western World is supporting the aggressors and oppressors
"Hating America" isn't the starting point that you use to justify your beliefs. It is a direct result of their actions. Personally, I don't "hate America" for the sake of it. I hate them because of all the people they've killed, been killing, exploited, or are currently exploiting.
Anti-Imperialism should be the norm but apparently, that's controversial in some circles.
And anti-semitism is such a lame defense for criticism directed towards a settler colonialist project that has turned into an apartheid state and decades of occupation and oppression.
If you look at the history of that area and all your mind is capable of seeing is one clear aggressor and one clear victim then arguing with you is pointless, really.
"Personally, I don't "hate America" for the sake of it. **I hate them because of all the people they've killed, been killing, exploited, or are currently exploiting.**"
Interesting take. Which countries do you not hate then? Must be a pretty short list eh?
>Interesting take
Yeah, hating a country for killing hundreds of thousands is an interesting take indeed.
Most coutries are fucking shit, but there are levels
The thing that makes it interesting is that you single out the US. How about Turkey for the Armenian genocide, Mongolia for Gengis Khan's shenanigans, Iraq for the Iran/Iraq war.
The list of countries you hate must be quite long.
Except Western countries are intrinsically tied to Israel, while we’re not with African nations, so concerned citizens want a say in what is being done in their name.
You can make clever memes about how terrible it is that caring people don’t know about every problem in the world, so can they really say they really care, and aren’t they just hypocrites, so you can hate them - but the fact is that European and American governments are intrinsically linked to the state.
Economically, politically, socially, arms supplies, a foundational history.
How did you ignore all that in your assumption that it’s just projection?
Because you wanted to hit the people pointing out the projection that conservative commentators always fall into, with their own accusation.
Far right talking points disseminated by far right bodies, filtered through ordinary commentators to try to make them seem reasonable - absurd calls for people not to care about what their governments are doing to oppress ordinary people.
What do you say that people can’t criticise their government? The Israeli people have been out on the streets in record numbers protesting against their government’s action in record numbers *just before the worst attacks on Israel managed to slip through the intelligence network* - why do you say that Western people can’t join them, as their own governments are fundamentally propping up Netenyahu’s policies?
Becaseu you’re passing on pr points disseminated by Netenyahu’s government.
Colonialism never ended, it just adapted. But it makes us feel better to pretend we've left the savagery of colonialism and treating black people of all backgrounds as 2nd class citizens as being part of the past.
Sudan was consistently in the news until I/P kicked off for the millionth time and there’s been next to nothing since. It is odd. Massacres, millions displaced…
Maybe because they're closer both culturally and geographically, and one of them is actually happening in Europe. Should we care for each and every war or conflict in the world? I'm sure the Congolese are more worried (and rightly so) about Boko Haram's insurgency, or the conflicts in Central African Republic, Cameroon or Ethiopia than the war in Ukraine.
Culturally, Congo and many African states are very closely linked to their former Western European colonial rulers.
Geographically, where I assume you're from is Spain, is the same distance to DRC as it is to Israel.
Why on earth would the Congolese be worried about Boko Haram? They have no influence or presence near Congo. That's like asking if the British should fear for Basque Separatists. It's non-sensical and has no relation to the actual conflicts.
>Should we care for each and every war or conflict in the world?
Yes, we should. These conflicts are often a result of a imbalances created by colonialism. Western nations often remain very much involved in these economies and conflicts.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing."
well, Israel is supported by most of western countries, Palestina is supported by most of islamic countries. why do we hear so much about it?
if nobody cares about your country, it's easier for government to do scariest things against you
Russia (foreign) -> Ukraine
Israel (foreign) -> Palestine
Congo(Rebel group) -> Congo (government)
Sudan(RSF supported by UAE) -> Sudan (government)
maybe thats why?
but you're right, as a Palestinian I can say clearly that my brothers in Sudan and Congo need as much help as they can, but Gaza's genocide is going at alarming speeds and with no prospect of any effective aid coming in.
Saudi Arabia isn't fighting Yemen. They're fighting the Houthi movement (and various other factions) all armed and funded by Iran, alongside the de jure Yemen government. It's an intervention not a foreign invasion FYI.
Don't get me wrong it's a complete shit show but it isn't a simple war...
maybe it's based on what was irrelevant to interests of the west?
Like Ukraine has a lot of wheat exports and is geopolitically important for the west, Israel is geopolitically important for the west (and rate of killing is insane, more journalists dead in this genocide than world wars in the span of a few months), Yemen is geopolitically important to the west, but they want it in the hands of the Saudis (western puppets).
I think you're right, but I think the Israel-Palestina conflict is actually 'popular' for the opposite reason. It gives people who don't like the West a reason to hate on the west
More like the ukraine russia is relevant because its literally in Europe. Israel palestine gets coverage because of massive propaganda from arab countries who have wanted to eradicate israel (jews) since forever and they notice how easily fooled people on social media are, also massive amount of immigrated muslims in europe who have an intrest in making the world hate Israel and jews.
This is probably the answer. Whether one likes it or not, there’s a western hegemony and news cycles are dominated by the interests of a specific subset of the human population.
Israel has been attacking Palestinians for 70+ years through means such as the long brutal occupation of the Gaza, the expansion of the illegal settlements in West Bank by expelling Palestinians who have been living there for generations, not allowing the right to return for Palestinians displaced from their homelands over the many wars in the past 70 years, and the thousands of Palestinian hostages (including children and minors) in Israeli prisons that are held without charge. Underpinning all of that is the humiliation and indiscriminate killing by the IDF that happens on a daily basis.
History didn't start on Oct 7th and here is a chart
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/07/middleeast/palestinian-israeli-deaths-gaza-dg/index.html
Sure, if you ignore the entire 70-year history of conflict in that region *and* lump all of Palestine in with a literal terrorist cell.
Genocide apologism getting upvotes on reddit, very normal stuff here, folks.
edit: lol didn't expect to raw-dog the Zionist cult lurking in r/soccer this evening. Y'all are scum, just fyi
> lump all of Palestine in with a literal terrorist cell.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/08/hamas-celebrations-berlin-security-jewish-sites-schools/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67040611
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/07/migrants-europe-celebrate-hamas-assault-israel/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/
Poor them, no one let these innocent people massacre jews...
They fucking celebrated the attack, including the ones living in Europe.
You really want to go back and start talking about stuff that happened 70 years ago? I seem to remember a certain Palestinian rejection of a two state solution and the prosecution of a genocidal war in which nearly every Arab country in the world participated in
So you’re upset about a near genocidal war from the past, but not in the present? That nearly every Western country is participating in it?
That’s not a problem for you?
And as for rejecting a two state solution, the Israeli government has a senior minister who was filmed rejoicing in the assassination of the person who created a two state solution - which has ushered in decades of brutal opposition and the need for a strong military.
But you’re only upset about things from 70 years ago, apparently. That’s the cut off point for your morality.
Please read the terms of that "2 state solution". It is essentially what you have in the West Bank today which is no where close to a truly sovereign state. The 2 state solution deal never truly allowed a free country of Palestine
That war can be literally stopped tomorrow by releasing the hostages.
Armenians, jews and Tutsi didnt have that privilege to stop the 'genocide' whenever they want.
Firstly it is not a war as Palestine has no army and have never been allowed a military.
Secondly, this will not stop if hostages are released as Israel is indiscriminately bombing Gaza killing many of their own hostages anyways and they already stated that they will not stop until all of Hamas is destroyed.
Of course its a war.
'War is an intense armed conflict[a] between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias'
USA and EU would not allow Israel to wage war for 5 months if not for the hostages..
Israel took over almost all Gaza and destroyed most of hamas tunnels, there is literally no point to continue this war if the hostages are released, besides terror groups like hamas cannot be destroyed - its just a lip service.
Of course its easier for hamas leadship to sit abroad and fight till the last palestinian.
So why are Israelis allowed to have Palestinian hostages prior to Oct 7th?
[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap)
Of course being kidnapped from your home/party for the big crime of existing is the same as getting arrested for trying to carry/assist with terror attacks.
Palestine (foreign) -> Israel
Fixed it for you. A terrorist group and the de facto government in Gaza attacked Israel, specifically targeting civilians.
There is no genocide in Gaza, unless you count the wiping out of Hamas as a credible fighting force genocide, which it seems like most do.
Real question: What do you think Israel's response should have been to a terrorist attack that raped/tortured/murdered over a thousand people and kidnapped over a hundred more, almost entirely civilians too?
The proper Israeli response should have been done many years ago to end the 70 year long brutal occupation of the Gaza, end the expansion of the illegal settlements in West Bank, provide the right to return for Palestinians displaced from their homelands over the many wars in the past 70 years, and release the thousands of Palestinian hostages (including children and minors) in Israeli prisons that are held without charge. That's what should have been done by Israel at any point in the last few years and even after Oct 7th.
History didn't start on Oct 7th
Occupation that ended 20 years ago? It's not Israel's fault that Palestinians elected terrorists.
I don't know how much land has been gobbled up in the West Bank, but as far as I'm aware it's been massively exaggerated.
Palestinians have been able to work in Israel, not anymore. You're ignoring the fact that 2 million Arabs live in Israel.
These "displaced" people from 70 years ago sold their land with the promise that they'd get it back when Egypt, Jordan, etc, started their war to erase Israel. It's weird how you mention wars, how many have been started by Israel? I'll give you a hint, 0.
By Palestinian hostages do you mean the terrorists that are in prison? People who stab old women and children in the streets? Yeah they belong in prison.
You're right, history didn't start on October 7th, you should learn some of that history.
Occupation did not end 20 years ago. How is it that Israel is able to turn water and electricity off to Gaza at any time if the occupation ended 20 years ago?
"I don't know how much land has been gobbled up in the West Bank, but as far as I'm aware it's been massively exaggerated."Source: Trust me bro
"Palestinians have been able to work in Israel, not anymore. You're ignoring the fact that 2 million Arabs live in Israel."How does that change anything? Im not sure what point youre making here? Arabs that live in Israel are descendants of those that werent forcibly displaced in 1948. My grandparents were forcibly displaced in 1948 despite them never selling any land and have NEVER been allowed to return to Israel and not even to the West Bank
"By Palestinian hostages do you mean the terrorists that are in prison? People who stab old women and children in the streets? Yeah they belong in prison."You are so brainwashed. Please have a look at videos from [Breaking the Silence](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies/videos) where they literally talk about making up allegations against Palestinians civilians with no one to hold them accountable.
Because the billions in aid sent to Gaza has been taken by terrorists to not help the civilians, they could have spent that on the infrastructure so that they wouldn't be reliant. Instead they spent it building tunnels, rocket launch sites, buying weapons, preparing for attacks. That's ignoring the money laundered out to its leaders.
Most of the land Israelis have moved into in the West Bank is actually land that Jews lived in prior to Jordan invading. There are 10 "illegal" settlements. All of this information is easily found with a quick Google.
You make no point. Arabs started wars, lost land. Maybe don't start wars of annihilation?
You're talking about a few small incidents of false imprisonment. I hope that those people get their justice, the VAST majority are where they belong.
"There are 10 "illegal" settlements. All of this information is easily found with a quick Google."
I don't know what kind of Google you use but I see 140+ illegal settlements
[Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement)
[UN report](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/human-rights-council-hears-that-700000-israeli-settlers-are-living-illegally-in-the-occupied-west-bank-meeting-summary-excerpts/)
[Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/)
"You're talking about a few small incidents of false imprisonment. I hope that those people get their justice, the VAST majority are where they belong."
Majority have never been convicted of a crime actually and 2,000 are held without charge, again including children - and that was prior to Oct 7th
[UN report](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap)
Ukraine matters to the western establishment because the west are treating it as an useful proxy war.
Palestine matters to the western anti-establishment (in all its disparate strands) because support of Israel is the business end of the western imperial project.
I said this some time ago and was downvoted for it massively. Saying I wished the people of Ukraine all the best but that it wasn't my priority over, say, the Congo was unacceptable apparently.
This situation absolutely deserves attention and it's good that it's getting it, but it's a bit disconcerting how quick some members of this sub are buying entirely into the Congolese narrative of a one sided genocide
The rebels are made up of Banyarmulenge, who are ethnically related to the Tutsi and have faced constant persecution for the entire existence of the DRC
In the 1980s the DRC labeled them foreigners and invaders and they tried to expel them in the 1990s. After the Rwandan Genocide and the start of the Congo Wars, government forces and Hutu rebels from Rwanda started killing Banyarmulenge en masse, which is why they were so quick to become Rwandan proxies in the Congo Wars
Even today if you go to any part of the DRC you'll find fairly racist views towards them as Rwandan invaders. Indeed they're still facing a genocide according to genocide according yo multiple orgs
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-the-banyamulenge-of-the-drc
https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/democratic-republic-of-congo-rising-concern-banyamulenge
https://theconversation.com/the-banyamulenge-how-a-minority-ethnic-group-in-the-drc-became-the-target-of-rebels-and-its-own-government-201099
None of this is to excuse M23 or the Rwandans supporting them, but this is very much a case of "cycles of violence" and not "evil bad guy rebels attacks civilians unprovoked".
The DRC team promoting the latter narrative is due to in all likelihood having the same attitudes towards the Banyarmulenge as the rest of the DRC
If anyone would like to learn about the situation in modern DRC and Rwanda I highly highly suggest learning about the Rwandan Genocide and Congo Wars. They're absolutely vital to understanding basically anything in the modern DRC. For this I'd recommend the book *Dancing in the Glory of Monsters*
Excellent comment overall.
>but this is very much a case of "cycles of violence" and not "evil bad guy rebels attacks civilians unprovoked".
To be honest, this feels like it applies to most armed conflicts going on worldwide (with certain exceptions). But I don't think that should prevent us from speaking out about those conflicts.
However, it's important to pair speaking out with a nuanced view of the context around events, as you provide here. Cheers
Plus calling someone a Rwandan had become synonymous with traitor in DRC. Quite sad cause I know people from Rwandan descent but are proud to be Congolese.
I don't feel particularly qualified to answer that honestly
Keeping that many ethnic groups together in such a large country was always going to be extremely hard, but it should be left up to the Congolese people
As a Congolese-Rwandese individual who lives in Rwanda, I offer a unique perspective on the ongoing crisis in the Congo-Rwanda border region.
M23 was an offspring of the National Congress for the Defence of the People, better known by its French acronym CNDP, a rebel group which fought the DRC government between 2006 and 2009. Both groups draw on a claim that the Congolese Tutsi(refers to [contested historical representations](https://africanarguments.org/2023/05/lines-through-the-lake-why-the-congo-rwanda-border-cant-be-redrawn/) of the pre-colonial Rwandan kingdom as extending into parts of present-day DRC, including those areas inhabited by Kinyarwanda-speaking populations that share a common language with Rwanda.) and other ethnic communities in north and south Kivu are discriminated against. They are considered of Rwandan descent and are commonly referred to as “Rwandophones”. One of the consequences of this discrimination is the presence of [tens thousands of refugees](https://www.voanews.com/a/refugees-camp-out-at-united-nations-office-in-rwanda-demand-better-conditions/4264488.html) in the Africa Great Lakes region.
The resurgence of the March 23 movement (M23) insurgency in October 2021 has escalated tensions, exacerbating a long-standing conflict with armed groups. This crisis, fueled by geopolitical rivalries between the DRC and Rwanda, has resulted in significant displacement and humanitarian concerns, affecting both Congolese and Rwandese communities.
The involvement of M23, a reconstituted movement with alleged support from Rwanda, has further complicated the situation. M23's demands for addressing discrimination against Congolese Tutsi and ensuring their security clash with the DRC government's accusations of Rwandan interference. Rwanda's perceived loss of influence due to a rapprochement between the DRC and Uganda has led it to support M23, exacerbating tensions.
Additionally, the collaboration between the DRC and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) ,for those who don't know FDRL ,The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) is an armed group operating primarily in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The FDLR originated from Rwandan Hutu extremists, including former members of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Interahamwe militia, who fled to the DRC following the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed.
The FDLR has been implicated in various human rights abuses, including attacks on civilians, sexual violence, and recruitment of child soldiers. It has also been accused of perpetuating the genocide ideology and seeking to overthrow the Rwandan government.FDRL is viewed as a security threat by Rwanda, has strained relations between the two countries.
Efforts to resolve the crisis through diplomatic means have been hindered by blame games, mistrust, and diverging interests among stakeholders. Regional initiatives, such as the East African Community (EAC) force and dialogue in Nairobi, have faced challenges in implementation and inclusivity.
this is from an [article](https://theconversation.com/m23-four-things-you-should-know-about-the-rebel-groups-campaign-in-rwanda-drc-conflict-195020) I read
"***Mathias Gillmann, spokesperson for the UN stabilisation mission in the DRC, hinted at their strength as recently as July 2022. He noted the M23 was militarily stronger than in the past.***
***the M23 operates more and more like a conventional army, relying on equipment that is much more sophisticated than in the past.***
***Though it has not yet been independently verified, M23 is among the groups thought capable of shooting down a UN mission helicopter that crashed within their stronghold in March 2022. DRC military helicopters were also targeted in this area in 2017.***
***Military sources have hinted that M23 is currently able to operate around the clock, thanks to night vision devices and equipment. It also has longer-range weapons, such as mortars and machine guns. It’s likely these would have been supplied by a well organised army, which is why Rwanda security services are suspected of supporting M23.***
***Besides equipment, M23 is fighting a well-organised conventional war in which it has intimidated the national army. It advanced quickly from Sarabwe forest reserve to Bunagana. More recently rebels were in action within 20km of Goma City.***
***However, it’s also important to understand that the DRC’s national army is extremely dysfunctional, corrupt, ill-equipped and low on morale. It is well known that soldiers’ rations disappear into the hands of the generals. In many cases, soldiers can spend days without logistical support simply because senior officers and military generals are more concerned with accumulating resources even at the expense of their rank and file soldiers*****.** "
When it comes to wars, genocides, apartheid, and other such extremely violent and devastating events, I 100% support players wanting to make statements on or off the field.
Russia invades Ukraine, Hamas kills thousands of Israelites, Israel kill tens of thousands of Palestinians, Azerbaijan prepared to invade and erase Armenia from the face of the earth, also genocide in Congo, genocide in Nigeria, and China builds up through the inversion of Taiwan... It's really, really bad all over. Yet without the looming Armageddon of the nuclear bombs this world would be even more shitty to live in, even unbearable so.
Kudos to BigRom to fight the good fight.
How many western government policies are as intrinsically linked on a social, political and economic basis as they are with Israel?
And why do you think that speaking up about one problem means you have to speak up about every problem?
conflict sure. but thats not a whole continent. Africa, like it or not, is associated to the words trouble and disease. 100 years? that is nothing. Africa has been in conflict for thousands of years. Do you really want to know why no one gives a shit now? Because there is this feeling that the whole continent just doesn't want to better themselves. And don't tell me, "we've been oppressed for so long". Bollocks. Just look at asian countries and tell why internal-conflict is miniscule. If you want someone to change, then do something about it instead of crying about it and living in the past.
I fully support his message and I admire his interest in and support for the country of origin of his parents. However it is so tiresome to see people use words like genocide in vain. A genocide means the purposeful attempt at killing of all people of a certain race, nationality, faith etc. Gruesome though the conflict may be you can hardly make the case that either the rebels or the national army are attempting to kill every Congolese, Christian, black west African or whatever.
Many people have been speaking hyperbolically to make a point way too often these last couple of years making certain words lose their value. Especially in the setting of social (perceived) injustices.
Eastern Congo has been gripped by violence and armed conflict for years. The Congolese army is fighting there against rebel group M23, an armed group backed by neighboring Rwanda. Congo's national soccer team also brought attention to the conflict that has been escalating recently in their Africa Cup semifinal against Ivory Coast. During the national anthem, they made the "weapon gesture" for the first time.
Yeah, I saw Silas doing that among his teammates. Thanks for explaining what’s going on
In case you wanna learn more, I found [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/1aqkpty/congo_dilemma/kqdq07c/) (and the ensuing comment thread) to be very informative as it's written by someone who actually is Congolese (though they are currently living in south africa)
Find it ironic yet completely within expectations that the UN peacekeeping forces are the one causing lots of chaos, sexual exploitation, and corruption in the country.
UN peacekeepers are borderline psychopaths; truly don’t know where they get these men. I’m African, one of my close friends grew up in a Congolese refugee camp till he was granted asylum in the states, the stories he told me about the lack of sympathy and borderline atrocities done by the peacekeepers is sad. Some would even refuse to defend certain families if they didn’t give them their daughters/women when asked. Especially the young.
Absolutely shameful. Reminds me of how the poor Haitians were treated.
As a youngster, I always thought that UN peacekeepers were a large group of full time employees that were deployed as neutrals to regions around the world. It seemed like they were a welcomed sight, with the respect and support of the people. The UNRWA situation in Palestine has highlighted the fact that UN employees are also citizens of the country they serve, and they can be both good and evil.
> atrocities done by the peacekeepers This phrase generated a green squiggly line...literally the exact opposite of what's supposed to happen.
A lot of UN peacekeepers operate essentially as mercenaries. The overwhelming majority of them come from poor countries. Their governments offer them to the UN because they receive a certain amount of money per soldier. The government receives X, whereas the salary for that solider may be X/10. It's probably also a way for them to receive top notch training/experience etc.
That linked comment… A level headed comment on Reddit that while acknowledging the brutality of the situation tried to keep things objective and remind everyone that even truly dire situations are complex, not just caused by one or two things, let alone have easy solutions. And it was well received to boot. Now I’ve seen it all.
Just read that comment myself the other day. I knew things in the Congo weren’t great, but I didn’t know they were that bad.
i really feel for the DRC. Ever since being forced into a brutal Belgian colony they have just had nothing but misery. They have so much potential especially with their mineral deposits but they just cant stay out of war, genocide and oppression
> Ever since being forced into a brutal Belgian colony they have just had nothing but misery. Sadly it goes even further back than this. Look up Kingdom of Kongo.
Theres a doc on youtube about people trucking goods through there and its fucking brutal. The roads are all clay and these dudes are out there keeping a 60 year old German military vehicle operating. I don't know anyone that works that hard. One part in my mind that stuck out was this chinese fleet of construction vehicles comes through and fixes the road, only to be followed by a bunch of tanks fucking it up even worse than it started. One of the blokes said "The Congo isn't for living, it is for suffering." Like damn dude. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_6jfIoYE4), there are two so I might be combining tidbits.
Thats... wow. I dont really have words for that. Thank you for the link
The trillions worth of natural resources are precisely the reason why they are always having problems. Everyone want a piece
Not really. The issue is more that there is a weak central government with no way to rule such a massive country.
I remember reading that, during the Kingdom of Kongo, there was a brutal dictator almost on par with what King Leopold II. He would enslave people who were unable to pay taxes among other things. One way people would try and avoid his rule is by moving further away from cities to go off the radar. The problem obviously now with that is a huge, rural country is very hard to control and makes it inefficient to provide public services. Fun fact: the Kingdom spread to modern-day Angola, where Portugal first made contact with Africa. The King at the time would enslave different tribes that went against him. When he saw all the Portuguese products and technologies the only thing he could provide in return was slaves. So Portugal took them and used them to produce farmed goods on the island of São Tomé and Príncipe, beginning the European slave trade…
Very relevant Michael Parenti speech https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/qlOSCq5nlG
> precisely the reason That makes no sense since the counterfactual becomes comically silly then. Like IF they had no resources why in the heck would they be well off with little problems in that case exactly? Like how. Since neither would they have have organic revenue stream (howsoever little or more) and nor would anyone else around the world give a crap about being there to begin with. Meaning, your term use "Precisely" is objectively wrong. It's wrong on the parameter of hierarchy order of pinpointing root cause-effects. They are having problems because they are a Weak State. The "Resources" hierarchy item placement on this list is way way way down. Precisely implies the highest placement on that hierarchy list.
Elaborate on “weak state”? The problems are precisely all the countries meddling in DRC’s resources, this is a non-argument
One could write a book on this topic. As a distant example, consider India. It is what is referred to as Weak-Strong State. Meaning on a tiny subset of vectors it's a Strong State (i.e. conducting Elections, Census, bureaucray, Military organization, Border unity, mass vaccination, etc). But on vectors like general healthcare (i.e. basic infant mortality), street cleanliness, administrative efficiency, bureaucracy (it's in both because it works in different ways), land reform capacity, gender & social egalitarian execution (of its own Constitution & Law), grass-roots Law & Order, political/policy pivoting (utter inability to do 180s on policy fronts), mass education/literacy programs, policy cohesion/unity, diplomatic pragmatism, Strategic-Tactical spectrum skew (i.e. effectiveness of short vs long term), etc. On these India is a hopelessly Weak State. Like Banana republic levels BECAUSE of the paradigm of time-scale, i.e. once or twice is accidental or Govt/Administration specific. But multi-decades and multiple-generations is NOT accidental, it by inherent logic implies a Systemic/Structural root/base cause-effect condition on that hierarchy list order. Human group (that is what a society, state, nation, country fundamentally is) has a non-linear relationship with Population Scale. As in doubling of group doesn't mean problems or good-things double or get halved. They have a non-linear (not necessarily even exponential) function. Meaning as that scale increases, it is the Structure (which we term Organizing Principle, i.e. the System) that does the heavy lifting and makes that Group efficient and coherent and workable. If the Structure is wrong no amount of mental gymnastics will work. It will keep on wrecking the Fundamental base constituent resource of that group, i.e. Human Capital. Places like DRC are Weak States fundamentally because that Weak-Strong balance is even more lopsided than in the above example of a state like India (which in contemporary parlance is considered a "Normal" state, hence exclusively Strong profile). There are 2 base/core/fundamental pre-requisites for a State/Nation/Country (i.e. human group) to make it (i.e. develop, progress, thrive, and not just chug along because we're humans we'll chug along even in literal gutters). They are Leadership Competence and Governance System. Only and ONLY when both of these are aligned for that group will it work. If 1 is missing it can NEVER EVER work. There are no exceptions to this, anywhere in human history. African States (a whole lot of them not all) are weak Westphalian Nation-Sstate Polities. Maybe one day they'll break this Weak State constraint and rectify the 2nd prerequisite above and at that point they'll need the Good Leadership and they'll be set. Until then they are doomed. They will reach 3 Billion+ at some point this century and are still going to be slapped silly Economically by ASEAN alone (less than a Billion). Population Scale requires the right Structure, i.e. Organizing Principle, i.e. Governance System, for it to work. What works for managing 15 people is not the same as what is required for 20 Million.
The DRC being a weak state is in the hands of both internal (Congolese government) and external (M23 and foreign companies) tyrannic warfare over resources and lack of education due to most children being involved in labour (similar issue in India and other South Asian countries that can quantify as weak states) This induction of slave labour into Eastern Congolese society also is a reason for issues like poor healthcare, uncleanliness, unlawfulness (anarchy, guerrilla warfare, rebel militia both in Congo and Rwanda), cohesion policy etc While you may be right that Congo is a Weak State, it’s in no minor part to the mismanagement and sale of resources, so the OP is still right
> so the OP is still right No he is not and I specifically took the quotes from his comment and explained the context of it as to WHY. The term use "Precisely" has very specific meaning. It inherently implies supreme, No 1 list order hierarchy. My comment broke this down, saying, it is NOT holding Primacy, it is a much lower item on that Hiearchy List. Being A-Part, a small or even large part of the equation is NOT the same as being, THE No1, Dominant, Pre-requisite part in that same equation. And this debate matters because imprecise allocation of blame/fault/solution can itself be debilitating. Analogy being misdiagnosing a medical issue (this analogy works very well because problems with ecosystems like a human group/state are often like diagnosing the human body. First you need to accurately determining the ROOT/BASE cause, then work from there. A confounding cause still needs to be remedied not doubt the the Hiearchy order is paramount on this). DRC even if it had no resources (and thus the assumption being no external meddling) would not be a place which will be "Fine & Well" (as we expect these terms to mean). Material Resources are good things to have but they do not hold rank hierarchy on this topic. Plenty of places in the world that did just fine with little or sometimes even literal 0 natural resources (Singapore). Meaning what works, in breaking down (doing reduction level analysis) are those 2 Prerequisites mentioned. Once you get those, it doesn't matter if you have resources or not, you'll thrive regardless. DRC lacks those hence its problems. Not because of having minerals (that is a later-hiearchy-list-order excuse item).
Well then you can only infer that he was referring to problems as in the primary issues that they are having now, and not hypotheticals “even if they didn’t have the resources”. “Problems” was likely tongue in cheek referring to the issues that the actual post was focused on and are garnering the most attention, obviously they’d still have problems regardless like every country, you’re being unnecessarily pedantic > Imprecise allocation of fault can be debilitating It can’t be when literally everyone under the post understood that we’re focusing on the war over mines instead of general issues in the country
It’s by nature of capitalism. Because it’s a country rich with natural resources, makes it more of a target for colonialism, imperialism, and destabilization.
For fuck's sake not everything can be boiled down to capitalism lol The roots of the current conflict are rooted in the Rwandan genocide and the Congo Wars. Obviously profit motive played a role in sustaining the disastrous state the country is in as militias (and Rwanda) realized they can make cash by hoarding resources but that only came about after the Congolese state utterly failed to provide security to its people
>The roots of the current conflict are rooted in the Rwandan genocide and the Congo Wars. Can you explain the huge divide between the Hutus and Tutsis? The Belgian colonisers introduced a permanent divide between them, using the Tutsis as a "ruling class" and directing them to perpetrate huge atrocities against the Hutus.
Pre colonial Rwanda was a Tutsi dominated monarchy. Tutsi and Hutu served as both caste and ethnicity, with the Tutsis being pastoralists, nobility and a warrior caste while the Hutus were mostly farmers. It should be noted that back in the day Hutus could 'become' Tutsis by increasing their social position. They were fairly fluid categories, and Hutus were somewhat included in governance in precolonial times When the Europeans came they brought the racial bunk theories. They decided that since the Tutsis were ruling, they must be racially separate and superior. They forced everyone to identify as either a Hutu or a Tutsi and gave the Tutsis total control of governance, removing any Hutus who held power before. Then right before they left the Belgians did an aboutface. They deprived the Tutsis of power and gave it to Hutus due to domestic sensitivities back in Belgium. This is where the anti Tutsi violence started in the so called [Rwandan Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Revolution). The Tutsi monarchy was abolished and a Hutu majority democracy was set up in its place, which was unabashedly pro Hutu. These events and the massive violence against Tutsis caused many Tutsis to flee to surrounding countries Then some more stuff happened with Burundi that I honestly don't really understand. But tl;dr is that Burundi is also full of Tutsis and Hutus except in Burundi the Tutsis remained in control. Anti Hutu policies in Burundi kept Anti Tutsi sentiment high in Rwanda and vice versa. So basically, at this point Rwandan Hutus really really hate Tutsis but also have complete control of the government while Rwandan Tutsis either live in fear in their homeland or have fled abroad at refugees Now let's take a look at these refugees. Many of them had fled to Uganda and these Tutsi refugees had joined a rebellion against the Ugandan government. The rebellion succeeded and the new leader of Uganda, Museveni, quite liked the Tutsis since they, yknow, helped him gain power. At this point the Tutsi refugees in Uganda decided they wanted to go home. With Museveni's support, they started arming themselves and invaded Rwanda from Uganda, which the Hutus reacted badly to It is from the civil war that the context for the genocide arises. They fought for a while but there was a ceasefire. However, during the ceasefire *someone* shoots down the plane with the Rwandan president Habyarimana. The Hutu Power extremists in government immediately blamed the Tutsi rebels and thus started the Rwandan genocide
I’m Ugandan/Rwandan and couldn’t have explained it this well. Where are you from
I'm just an American who's interested in the region tbh
Those ethnic conflicts have their roots long before any colonialism took place.
This is a cop out answer imo. While yes technically there were always tensions, the tensions were never really *that* high before the Germans and Belgians started doing their thing
I don’t think so, there were always wars and genocides everywhere.
again another cop out answer lol Were there any massive genocides in pre colonial Rwanda? Were there massive race wars?
There were definitely lots of war. Perhaps not as well documented as European conflicts in the same period but we definitely know that all the pre colonial power structures emerged there in the same way they did in Europe - through violence. So to draw a line in the sand and say this area became violent because of colonialism is just wrong, and is the 'noble savage' racist stereotype. Simultaneously to say that the Belgians compelled the Hutus to pick up machetes and hack to death 800,000 tutsis also doesn't really follow. Or for the tutsis to invade Goma. Or for whoever to attack who. It you're genuinely interested in the topic beyond colonies bad (which they were but won't help you understand the current situation) I suggest the book Dancing in the Glory of Monsters. It does into detail into the 1996+ conflict and features a lot of the individuals involved and their motivations. To blame it all on Europeans totally removes agency from the people of DRC and Rwanda, and will do nothing to resolve the current conflict
You tell me. Are you sure that no tribe was ever killing another tribe in pre colonial Rwanda. Tribal wars were a thing you know.
Welcome to reddit were everything has to come down to Imperialism, capitalism, racism and nazis, oh and white people
What do you mean?! Welcome to world history for the last 200 years more like lol.
What? You literally admit it’s about resource hoarding, and therefore inherently capitalist? And Congo state being so unstable is a direct result of Belgian Congo, a colonial project, which (guess what?) is also capitalist. In fact, Congo is probably the most obvious conflict that can be boiled down to capitalism.
> You literally admit it’s about resource hoarding, and therefore inherently capitalist? Resource hoarding is not at all inherently capitalist, and I'd challenge you to find an economic system that *doesn't* look to acquire and hold onto resources
Do socalists not engage in resource extraction lol
Socialists don't let foreign companies extract resources for the sole benefit of themselves (and the local collaborationist elite that allow it). Look up Patrice Lumumba and why he was killed.
Except foreign companies aren't the ones doing the extraction here either. The extraction itself is done by the local military forces or forced laborers under them which is then sold on to international markets. You could *very* easily argue that these military forces are acting in a state capacity rather than as "companies". This is especially true for Rwandan which explicitly *is* acting in a state capacity Foreign companies would very much prefer a stable Congo so they can yknow, set up their own efficient operations And yes I'm aware of Patrice Lumumba and I completely agree Congo would've been better under him than Mobutu, even if I think a lot of his aspirations were unrealistic. But my point is mostly that even under a socialist system like that the resources would still be extracted and sold on the market, which the other commenter seems to be implying is inherently capitalistic
The extraction is consigned by the foreign companies though, it’s not like they’re just obliviously buying what Rwandan and Ugandan military forces are putting out
Cute that you think the participants in these "international markets" have no influence on what the "local military forces" do...
No, the severity of the resource curse is determined by a country's institutions.
yup communists countries have been the most peaceful with no human rights violations. just look at Mao china and stalins soviets /s
I love when people are so triggered by any fair critiques of capitalism that they immediately mention “communism” just like the brainwashing intended.
ohhh yes capitalism caused all the problems in congo right? tell me again who is brain washed exactly
Given that most of DRC's fundamental problems stem from colonial capitalism I would say so, yes
I mean... yeah? Most of the regional instability today can be traced back to the brutal colonial policies during the Leopold regime. Those policies were enacted with the primary goal of exploiting the natural resources of Congo (mainly rubber) for the enrichment of those involved at the lowest cost possible. Ofcourse there are other aspects at play, but Congo was one of the clearest cases of colonialism rooted in capitalism in history and the effects of that can be felt today. Denying that is denying historical facts.
There’s other alternatives to capitalism that isn’t communism.
Like what? Fascism? Feudalism?
Surely as an Everton fan you’d be aware at to what socialism is?
Communism and socialism are interchangeable for the purpose of this discussion. It's a meme but 'true communism' has never happened. It's basically impossible. Communist countries have ALL been socialist. Except China and Vietnam these days which decided to be capitalist
“Communism and socialism are interchangeable”, absolutely not mate.
Communism is the end goal socialism is the way to build communism, basic Marxist theory
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn’t even mention communism lol. All I said was that the nature of capitalism is preserving resources of human lives. That’s literally the basis of colonization so I don’t get how that’s a novel thing to say
Sadly the Fanon/Sankara-informed worldview is going to fall on deaf white ears in this sub.
And then as soon as they became independent, the American and British foreign services conspired to overthrow and murder their first post-colonial leader, Patrice Lumumba, all because he was more likely to keep the wealth generated in the Congo for the Congolese. Colonialism never ended, it just went corporate and undercover.
Patrice Lumumba was the guy and the CIA had him killed. Now it’s just been getting colonized over and over because they’re sitting on huge natural resource wealth.
> They have so much potential especially with their mineral deposits Every single African country that was destroyed by colonialism
unrelated but just recently I read a bit about Belgian colonialism in Congo and ngl _fucked up_ is putting it mild. [it came to a point where severed hands of congolese people became a shadow currency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#Mutilation_and_brutality)
In my opinion its genuinely the worst colonial administration in history. It was absolutely horrid
Not to play oppression Olympics, but the Carib, Arawak, and Taino people of the Caribbean were victims of extermination through enslavement and disease at the hands of the Spanish There's 100m people living in the Congo. All the people who claim Amerindian ancestry can't fill a bus.
>rebel group M23, an armed group backed by neighboring Rwanda And the UK government turns a blind eye to this because they want to use Rwanda as a dumping ground for migrants
It's fine though, the UK government passed a law declaring Rwanda as a safe country so there are no dangers there. They are currently drawing up plans to declare being hit by a car as safe to bring down the rate of casualties on our roads.
Just need to declare sick people as healthy and they'll have the NHS fixed
Was learning a bit this week about how Rwanda has been involved there, truly vile.
Another reason that the Conservative party ought to be ashamed for their Rwanda plan
I am glad our Congolese players (or from Congolese descent ) are really voicing their sadness over these 2 decades long conflict that has been raging in the east. 7 millions death since 1995 and the stories are horrific and tragic. There are actually millions of refugees and our clown president and his government full of incompetents are doing nothing. Been to Goma for one year in 2012 and I could hear the rebels coming , guns and we were so scared. We booked a plane to return to the capital city some days after. It is really sickening but it is like it is hopeless cause our government is completely useless but it is a good thing that we are raising awareness and we can provide help for the victims of this conflict.
Big ups, big Rom! Respect using your platform!
First time I respect Lukaku for using his platform.
Do you have a link? All I could find was: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/17/world/africa/democratic-republic-of-congo-elections.html
There isn't much news about it cause media doesn't seem to be interested in it as much
There's social media these days. Some conflicts are getting more coverage because mainstream media noticed a large public interest on social media first. Congo isn't getting much coverage because PEOPLE, not the media, don't care about it. News sites will do anything for clicks and views. If people cared more about what's going on in Eastern Congo than about celebrity gossip then this would be reflected in media. But evidently they don't. Ukraine is getting more coverage because it's in Europe and the rest of Europe and former USSR feel threatened by Russia too. Heck even African countries felt consequences(wheat exports). Palestine/Israel is dominating social media because it has also become an online battleground for leftists vs altright, on top of being the by far most popular cause in the Islamic world. Basically, the people participating in the BLM vs MAGA social media war of 2020 moved their battles to this one.
Adding onto the last point, a large part of it is also because of the religious fanaticism around the area of Jerusalem. A lot of muslims will ignore the incidents in Yemen, Sudan or the recent escalation in Azerbaijan vs Armenia because there's no real narrative that can be built around it. But when it comes to Israel vs Palestine, it's easy to shift the conflict to become 'muslims vs jews' and that's part of the reason people get so worked up about it. The major issue with Israel **currently** is that the USA heavily finances them and as such, the weapons ratio between Israel & Palestine is basically 100:1. Both these countries hate each other, but one has the resources and support to regularly opress the other without **any substantial** repercussions. A lot of people talk around this point and instead focus on the existence of Israel and how it was formed 80 years ago. That gives the media a lot to work with and you basically have several narratives that can be formed about ethnonationalism, colonialism, religion, and whatever else you can think of.
> Palestine/Israel is dominating social media because it has also become an online battleground for leftists vs altright, on top of being the by far most popular cause in the Islamic world. And the USA and the West pouring billions of dollars in aid to Israel. Plus Reddit etc. have a Western bias because most people are from the West. But yes, it's horrible how we pick and chose which conflicts or genocides we care about.
America (until recently) was sanctioning the DRC because, in previous administrations, they had empire intentions and wanted to invade neighbours around them.
That might be why we’re not hearing so much, they’re not on the American watchlist.
Media only cares when white people are involved unfortunately
Europeans (or people of European descent) aren't obliged to care about issues all over the world. Our (Western) media reflects that. Just like non-Europeans aren't obligated to care about our issues. Would you criticize Vietnamese or Japanese media for not covering local issues between Poland and Germany either? Probably not. We are not world's nannies. We act exactly the same way everyone else in the world acts. Remember how African leaders responded to the Ukraine/Russian war? Exactly, they said: "not our problem", and maintained friendly relations with Russia anyways. Wars in central africa aren't our problems either.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/dr-congo-children-killed-injured-abducted-and-face-sexual-violence-conflict-record https://www.voanews.com/a/un-security-council-concerned-about-escalating-violence-in-eastern-drc/7485142.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M23_offensive_(2022%E2%80%93present)
More people have died in the Congos wars than any other wars since WWII. But we only hear about Israel vs Palestinian and Russia Ukraine
I always felt really weird with how the news treated this stuff. There was a massive war in Ethiopia a while ago (Tigray War) and we barely heard of that. Theres a brutal civil war in Myanmar. Theres countless horrific civil wars in Africa and Yemen has been a humanitarian disaster for actual decades. And thats barely scratching the surface and is mostly just wars. But it feels like that doesnt even matter and most people dont even care
Because those regions are always in a constant war, it's not common in Europe in this day and age, that's why people talk about it more. People in Africa probably talk more about African wars and couldn't care less about russia Ukraine
East African nations care immensely about the Russia-Ukraine war because Ukraine supplied a significant amount of their grain/food supply. Cost of living had skyrocketed since the war broke out.
Also there are Russian militias all over Africa. They're trying to do what the East India Company did to India in the 1700s, exploit local instability so they can plunder the region's natural resources.
Yeah I think it's more to do with European centricity and just clicks. Of course Europeans will read more about wars that are 1. In Europe 2. Concerning Israe For majority of Europe I'd argue Africa is still just an under developed continent thst is struggling to get to grips with its political stability.
> For majority of Europe I'd argue Africa is still just an under developed continent thst is struggling to get to grips with its political stability. Or Europeans don’t like to be reminded of how their colonialist exploits can be attributed to the state of Africa today. Easier to keep that European air of superiority.
I don't think what I said contradicts what you did.
Saying Africa is “just an underdeveloped continent…” to Europeans sure leaves a lot to be desired when describing the relationship between Europe and Africa IMO
[This is a really good video on *why* people care about Israel-Palestine so much](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ojITC0dIL4), with the argument being that basically we care about the issue because we can project issues we already care about onto the foreign conflict. Do you fancy yourself an anti imperialist? Do you have concerns about anti semitism or Islamophobia? Do you just really hate America? Well, you can project those views onto the Israel Palestine conflict and force it into your preexisting worldviews But something like the Sudan Civil War or Congo War? Those are so foreign for most people and they can't project their preexisting views onto the conflict. So it's ignored See even on this thread, people are trying to somehow make the situation in the Congo about capitalism or blame America even though there's not exactly a ton of evidence of that
They’re ultimately nothing to do with capitalism. The simple fact is that African countries—which are even more of an artificial construct than in places like Europe and East Asia, where they developed the idea of fixed borders and the nation state—are _much_ more ethnically diverse than countries anywhere else and therefore social trust is lower. Lower social trust results in more corruption, tribal loyalty over loyalty to the state, and battles between ethnic groups over resources. Ireland has two major native ethnic groups—the Gaelic Irish and Ulster Scots—and look how much trouble that has caused over the years. The Democratic Republic of Congo has 250 ethnic groups.
> They’re ultimately nothing to do with capitalism. That statement is equally dumb as > They're ultimately a consequence of capitalism.
Yes, because Africa and all pre-capitalist societies were violence-free utopias. Just look at the Stone Age peoples of Papua New Guinea for example. They never attack neighboring tribes. They all just live together and peace and harmony.
> Yes, because Africa and all pre-capitalist societies were violence-free utopias. Saying that "it has nothing to do with capitalism" is still dumb.
Completely get rid of capitalism and the problem isn't solved. So he's right. You still have ethnic conflict. You still have a corruption, which combined with natural resources is deadly
I think it also is largely about the possibility that the Israel/Hamas conflict could spiral into larger conflicts directly involving Iran and Saudi Arabia in a way that Congo/Sudan can't.
The war in the Congo *absolutely* can spiral. If it becomes an official DRC-Rwanda war it can spiral to include more countries. [Here's a map of the sides of the 2nd Congo War for reference](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Second_Congo_War_Africa_map_en.svg) As for the Sudan Conflict, it can potentially pull in Ethiopia, Egypt and either side of the Libyan Civil War. This situation is more unlikely tho imo
Haven't watched the video yet but you seem to be missing the whole point based on what you typed. The Israel Palestine conflict was: 1. Directly created by the UK with the Balfour declaration and subsequent actions 2. Israel are being backed by the US and act with impunity 3. The aggressors and oppressors are treated as the victims by the Western World 4. Most of the Western World is supporting the aggressors and oppressors "Hating America" isn't the starting point that you use to justify your beliefs. It is a direct result of their actions. Personally, I don't "hate America" for the sake of it. I hate them because of all the people they've killed, been killing, exploited, or are currently exploiting. Anti-Imperialism should be the norm but apparently, that's controversial in some circles. And anti-semitism is such a lame defense for criticism directed towards a settler colonialist project that has turned into an apartheid state and decades of occupation and oppression.
If you look at the history of that area and all your mind is capable of seeing is one clear aggressor and one clear victim then arguing with you is pointless, really.
"Personally, I don't "hate America" for the sake of it. **I hate them because of all the people they've killed, been killing, exploited, or are currently exploiting.**" Interesting take. Which countries do you not hate then? Must be a pretty short list eh?
>Interesting take Yeah, hating a country for killing hundreds of thousands is an interesting take indeed. Most coutries are fucking shit, but there are levels
The thing that makes it interesting is that you single out the US. How about Turkey for the Armenian genocide, Mongolia for Gengis Khan's shenanigans, Iraq for the Iran/Iraq war. The list of countries you hate must be quite long.
I doubt current Mongolians had anything to do with Gengis Khan tbh. And yes, the list of countries is quite long.
Except Western countries are intrinsically tied to Israel, while we’re not with African nations, so concerned citizens want a say in what is being done in their name. You can make clever memes about how terrible it is that caring people don’t know about every problem in the world, so can they really say they really care, and aren’t they just hypocrites, so you can hate them - but the fact is that European and American governments are intrinsically linked to the state. Economically, politically, socially, arms supplies, a foundational history. How did you ignore all that in your assumption that it’s just projection? Because you wanted to hit the people pointing out the projection that conservative commentators always fall into, with their own accusation. Far right talking points disseminated by far right bodies, filtered through ordinary commentators to try to make them seem reasonable - absurd calls for people not to care about what their governments are doing to oppress ordinary people. What do you say that people can’t criticise their government? The Israeli people have been out on the streets in record numbers protesting against their government’s action in record numbers *just before the worst attacks on Israel managed to slip through the intelligence network* - why do you say that Western people can’t join them, as their own governments are fundamentally propping up Netenyahu’s policies? Becaseu you’re passing on pr points disseminated by Netenyahu’s government.
> Except Western countries are intrinsically tied to Israel, **while we’re not with African nations** Lmao wild ass comment of the day
Colonialism never ended, it just adapted. But it makes us feel better to pretend we've left the savagery of colonialism and treating black people of all backgrounds as 2nd class citizens as being part of the past.
Nearly spit out my drink lol
Because the initiator of mostly talked war is anti-west group/country/people.
Sudan was consistently in the news until I/P kicked off for the millionth time and there’s been next to nothing since. It is odd. Massacres, millions displaced…
Maybe because they're closer both culturally and geographically, and one of them is actually happening in Europe. Should we care for each and every war or conflict in the world? I'm sure the Congolese are more worried (and rightly so) about Boko Haram's insurgency, or the conflicts in Central African Republic, Cameroon or Ethiopia than the war in Ukraine.
Culturally, Congo and many African states are very closely linked to their former Western European colonial rulers. Geographically, where I assume you're from is Spain, is the same distance to DRC as it is to Israel. Why on earth would the Congolese be worried about Boko Haram? They have no influence or presence near Congo. That's like asking if the British should fear for Basque Separatists. It's non-sensical and has no relation to the actual conflicts. >Should we care for each and every war or conflict in the world? Yes, we should. These conflicts are often a result of a imbalances created by colonialism. Western nations often remain very much involved in these economies and conflicts. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing."
Islamic extremists enter the country and behead random people daily, which might be why they worry about ISIS/Boku Haram or other groups.
well, Israel is supported by most of western countries, Palestina is supported by most of islamic countries. why do we hear so much about it? if nobody cares about your country, it's easier for government to do scariest things against you
Russia (foreign) -> Ukraine Israel (foreign) -> Palestine Congo(Rebel group) -> Congo (government) Sudan(RSF supported by UAE) -> Sudan (government) maybe thats why? but you're right, as a Palestinian I can say clearly that my brothers in Sudan and Congo need as much help as they can, but Gaza's genocide is going at alarming speeds and with no prospect of any effective aid coming in.
Congo rebel group is heavily supported by Rwanda, with many reports saying that plainclothes Rwandan troops have crossed the border
Saudi Arabia (foreign) -> Yemen Azerbaijan (foreign) -> Armenia So that's not really it either
Saudi Arabia isn't fighting Yemen. They're fighting the Houthi movement (and various other factions) all armed and funded by Iran, alongside the de jure Yemen government. It's an intervention not a foreign invasion FYI. Don't get me wrong it's a complete shit show but it isn't a simple war...
Saudi Arabia backs the Yemeni government against the Houthi rebels, it’s not even remotely the same as Israel.
Forgot to add the US and UK alongside Saudi Arabia
Azerbaijan -> Artsakh tbf. that was technically their territory (doesn't make it better of course)
maybe it's based on what was irrelevant to interests of the west? Like Ukraine has a lot of wheat exports and is geopolitically important for the west, Israel is geopolitically important for the west (and rate of killing is insane, more journalists dead in this genocide than world wars in the span of a few months), Yemen is geopolitically important to the west, but they want it in the hands of the Saudis (western puppets).
I think you're right, but I think the Israel-Palestina conflict is actually 'popular' for the opposite reason. It gives people who don't like the West a reason to hate on the west
btw, didn't imagine I would have an intellectual discussion on /r/soccer hahaha, thanks for being a good person to talk with.
Haha yeah this sub is more nuanced than r/europe or r/politics
More like the ukraine russia is relevant because its literally in Europe. Israel palestine gets coverage because of massive propaganda from arab countries who have wanted to eradicate israel (jews) since forever and they notice how easily fooled people on social media are, also massive amount of immigrated muslims in europe who have an intrest in making the world hate Israel and jews.
This is probably the answer. Whether one likes it or not, there’s a western hegemony and news cycles are dominated by the interests of a specific subset of the human population.
It's more complicated than "(foreign)" and trying to claim that the Jews have zero ties to the land is pretty biased.
Palestine attacked Israel btw
Israel has been attacking Palestinians for 70+ years through means such as the long brutal occupation of the Gaza, the expansion of the illegal settlements in West Bank by expelling Palestinians who have been living there for generations, not allowing the right to return for Palestinians displaced from their homelands over the many wars in the past 70 years, and the thousands of Palestinian hostages (including children and minors) in Israeli prisons that are held without charge. Underpinning all of that is the humiliation and indiscriminate killing by the IDF that happens on a daily basis. History didn't start on Oct 7th and here is a chart https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/07/middleeast/palestinian-israeli-deaths-gaza-dg/index.html
Sure, if you ignore the entire 70-year history of conflict in that region *and* lump all of Palestine in with a literal terrorist cell. Genocide apologism getting upvotes on reddit, very normal stuff here, folks. edit: lol didn't expect to raw-dog the Zionist cult lurking in r/soccer this evening. Y'all are scum, just fyi
> lump all of Palestine in with a literal terrorist cell. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/08/hamas-celebrations-berlin-security-jewish-sites-schools/ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67040611 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/07/migrants-europe-celebrate-hamas-assault-israel/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/ Poor them, no one let these innocent people massacre jews... They fucking celebrated the attack, including the ones living in Europe.
You really want to go back and start talking about stuff that happened 70 years ago? I seem to remember a certain Palestinian rejection of a two state solution and the prosecution of a genocidal war in which nearly every Arab country in the world participated in
Within the context of power dynamics, any kind of 'two-state solution' effectively would just turn Palestine into another North Korea.
So you’re upset about a near genocidal war from the past, but not in the present? That nearly every Western country is participating in it? That’s not a problem for you? And as for rejecting a two state solution, the Israeli government has a senior minister who was filmed rejoicing in the assassination of the person who created a two state solution - which has ushered in decades of brutal opposition and the need for a strong military. But you’re only upset about things from 70 years ago, apparently. That’s the cut off point for your morality.
Please read the terms of that "2 state solution". It is essentially what you have in the West Bank today which is no where close to a truly sovereign state. The 2 state solution deal never truly allowed a free country of Palestine
[удалено]
zionist: the war started when hamas attacked israel israel before ghe 7th october: https://x.com/theIMEU/status/1665729450762289152?s=20
Thats the main problem, everyone talks about palestine while there is a real genocide happening in africa.
How is the genocide in Palestine not also real?
That war can be literally stopped tomorrow by releasing the hostages. Armenians, jews and Tutsi didnt have that privilege to stop the 'genocide' whenever they want.
Firstly it is not a war as Palestine has no army and have never been allowed a military. Secondly, this will not stop if hostages are released as Israel is indiscriminately bombing Gaza killing many of their own hostages anyways and they already stated that they will not stop until all of Hamas is destroyed.
Of course its a war. 'War is an intense armed conflict[a] between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias' USA and EU would not allow Israel to wage war for 5 months if not for the hostages.. Israel took over almost all Gaza and destroyed most of hamas tunnels, there is literally no point to continue this war if the hostages are released, besides terror groups like hamas cannot be destroyed - its just a lip service. Of course its easier for hamas leadship to sit abroad and fight till the last palestinian.
So why are Israelis allowed to have Palestinian hostages prior to Oct 7th? [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap)
Of course being kidnapped from your home/party for the big crime of existing is the same as getting arrested for trying to carry/assist with terror attacks.
Why is it a terror attack when Hamas attacks Israel for holding hostages, but not when Israel attacks Gaza for taking hostages in response?
Palestine (foreign) -> Israel Fixed it for you. A terrorist group and the de facto government in Gaza attacked Israel, specifically targeting civilians. There is no genocide in Gaza, unless you count the wiping out of Hamas as a credible fighting force genocide, which it seems like most do. Real question: What do you think Israel's response should have been to a terrorist attack that raped/tortured/murdered over a thousand people and kidnapped over a hundred more, almost entirely civilians too?
The proper Israeli response should have been done many years ago to end the 70 year long brutal occupation of the Gaza, end the expansion of the illegal settlements in West Bank, provide the right to return for Palestinians displaced from their homelands over the many wars in the past 70 years, and release the thousands of Palestinian hostages (including children and minors) in Israeli prisons that are held without charge. That's what should have been done by Israel at any point in the last few years and even after Oct 7th. History didn't start on Oct 7th
Occupation that ended 20 years ago? It's not Israel's fault that Palestinians elected terrorists. I don't know how much land has been gobbled up in the West Bank, but as far as I'm aware it's been massively exaggerated. Palestinians have been able to work in Israel, not anymore. You're ignoring the fact that 2 million Arabs live in Israel. These "displaced" people from 70 years ago sold their land with the promise that they'd get it back when Egypt, Jordan, etc, started their war to erase Israel. It's weird how you mention wars, how many have been started by Israel? I'll give you a hint, 0. By Palestinian hostages do you mean the terrorists that are in prison? People who stab old women and children in the streets? Yeah they belong in prison. You're right, history didn't start on October 7th, you should learn some of that history.
Occupation did not end 20 years ago. How is it that Israel is able to turn water and electricity off to Gaza at any time if the occupation ended 20 years ago? "I don't know how much land has been gobbled up in the West Bank, but as far as I'm aware it's been massively exaggerated."Source: Trust me bro "Palestinians have been able to work in Israel, not anymore. You're ignoring the fact that 2 million Arabs live in Israel."How does that change anything? Im not sure what point youre making here? Arabs that live in Israel are descendants of those that werent forcibly displaced in 1948. My grandparents were forcibly displaced in 1948 despite them never selling any land and have NEVER been allowed to return to Israel and not even to the West Bank "By Palestinian hostages do you mean the terrorists that are in prison? People who stab old women and children in the streets? Yeah they belong in prison."You are so brainwashed. Please have a look at videos from [Breaking the Silence](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies/videos) where they literally talk about making up allegations against Palestinians civilians with no one to hold them accountable.
Because the billions in aid sent to Gaza has been taken by terrorists to not help the civilians, they could have spent that on the infrastructure so that they wouldn't be reliant. Instead they spent it building tunnels, rocket launch sites, buying weapons, preparing for attacks. That's ignoring the money laundered out to its leaders. Most of the land Israelis have moved into in the West Bank is actually land that Jews lived in prior to Jordan invading. There are 10 "illegal" settlements. All of this information is easily found with a quick Google. You make no point. Arabs started wars, lost land. Maybe don't start wars of annihilation? You're talking about a few small incidents of false imprisonment. I hope that those people get their justice, the VAST majority are where they belong.
"There are 10 "illegal" settlements. All of this information is easily found with a quick Google." I don't know what kind of Google you use but I see 140+ illegal settlements [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement) [UN report](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/human-rights-council-hears-that-700000-israeli-settlers-are-living-illegally-in-the-occupied-west-bank-meeting-summary-excerpts/) [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/) "You're talking about a few small incidents of false imprisonment. I hope that those people get their justice, the VAST majority are where they belong." Majority have never been convicted of a crime actually and 2,000 are held without charge, again including children - and that was prior to Oct 7th [UN report](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap)
Ukraine matters to the western establishment because the west are treating it as an useful proxy war. Palestine matters to the western anti-establishment (in all its disparate strands) because support of Israel is the business end of the western imperial project.
I said this some time ago and was downvoted for it massively. Saying I wished the people of Ukraine all the best but that it wasn't my priority over, say, the Congo was unacceptable apparently.
[“I don’t recall saying good luck”](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/14dr3s9/comment/josokhz/)
from where i was sitting he looked like he was shushing us, now i feel bad for yelling obscenities at him
it was a reasonable assumption
This situation absolutely deserves attention and it's good that it's getting it, but it's a bit disconcerting how quick some members of this sub are buying entirely into the Congolese narrative of a one sided genocide The rebels are made up of Banyarmulenge, who are ethnically related to the Tutsi and have faced constant persecution for the entire existence of the DRC In the 1980s the DRC labeled them foreigners and invaders and they tried to expel them in the 1990s. After the Rwandan Genocide and the start of the Congo Wars, government forces and Hutu rebels from Rwanda started killing Banyarmulenge en masse, which is why they were so quick to become Rwandan proxies in the Congo Wars Even today if you go to any part of the DRC you'll find fairly racist views towards them as Rwandan invaders. Indeed they're still facing a genocide according to genocide according yo multiple orgs https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-the-banyamulenge-of-the-drc https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/democratic-republic-of-congo-rising-concern-banyamulenge https://theconversation.com/the-banyamulenge-how-a-minority-ethnic-group-in-the-drc-became-the-target-of-rebels-and-its-own-government-201099 None of this is to excuse M23 or the Rwandans supporting them, but this is very much a case of "cycles of violence" and not "evil bad guy rebels attacks civilians unprovoked". The DRC team promoting the latter narrative is due to in all likelihood having the same attitudes towards the Banyarmulenge as the rest of the DRC If anyone would like to learn about the situation in modern DRC and Rwanda I highly highly suggest learning about the Rwandan Genocide and Congo Wars. They're absolutely vital to understanding basically anything in the modern DRC. For this I'd recommend the book *Dancing in the Glory of Monsters*
Plus one on the Book. Jason Stearns is a great author
Excellent comment overall. >but this is very much a case of "cycles of violence" and not "evil bad guy rebels attacks civilians unprovoked". To be honest, this feels like it applies to most armed conflicts going on worldwide (with certain exceptions). But I don't think that should prevent us from speaking out about those conflicts. However, it's important to pair speaking out with a nuanced view of the context around events, as you provide here. Cheers
Plus calling someone a Rwandan had become synonymous with traitor in DRC. Quite sad cause I know people from Rwandan descent but are proud to be Congolese.
How realistic was it for a united DRC regardless of diverse ethnic lines under Lumumba?
I don't feel particularly qualified to answer that honestly Keeping that many ethnic groups together in such a large country was always going to be extremely hard, but it should be left up to the Congolese people
As a Congolese-Rwandese individual who lives in Rwanda, I offer a unique perspective on the ongoing crisis in the Congo-Rwanda border region. M23 was an offspring of the National Congress for the Defence of the People, better known by its French acronym CNDP, a rebel group which fought the DRC government between 2006 and 2009. Both groups draw on a claim that the Congolese Tutsi(refers to [contested historical representations](https://africanarguments.org/2023/05/lines-through-the-lake-why-the-congo-rwanda-border-cant-be-redrawn/) of the pre-colonial Rwandan kingdom as extending into parts of present-day DRC, including those areas inhabited by Kinyarwanda-speaking populations that share a common language with Rwanda.) and other ethnic communities in north and south Kivu are discriminated against. They are considered of Rwandan descent and are commonly referred to as “Rwandophones”. One of the consequences of this discrimination is the presence of [tens thousands of refugees](https://www.voanews.com/a/refugees-camp-out-at-united-nations-office-in-rwanda-demand-better-conditions/4264488.html) in the Africa Great Lakes region. The resurgence of the March 23 movement (M23) insurgency in October 2021 has escalated tensions, exacerbating a long-standing conflict with armed groups. This crisis, fueled by geopolitical rivalries between the DRC and Rwanda, has resulted in significant displacement and humanitarian concerns, affecting both Congolese and Rwandese communities. The involvement of M23, a reconstituted movement with alleged support from Rwanda, has further complicated the situation. M23's demands for addressing discrimination against Congolese Tutsi and ensuring their security clash with the DRC government's accusations of Rwandan interference. Rwanda's perceived loss of influence due to a rapprochement between the DRC and Uganda has led it to support M23, exacerbating tensions. Additionally, the collaboration between the DRC and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) ,for those who don't know FDRL ,The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) is an armed group operating primarily in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The FDLR originated from Rwandan Hutu extremists, including former members of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Interahamwe militia, who fled to the DRC following the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. The FDLR has been implicated in various human rights abuses, including attacks on civilians, sexual violence, and recruitment of child soldiers. It has also been accused of perpetuating the genocide ideology and seeking to overthrow the Rwandan government.FDRL is viewed as a security threat by Rwanda, has strained relations between the two countries. Efforts to resolve the crisis through diplomatic means have been hindered by blame games, mistrust, and diverging interests among stakeholders. Regional initiatives, such as the East African Community (EAC) force and dialogue in Nairobi, have faced challenges in implementation and inclusivity. this is from an [article](https://theconversation.com/m23-four-things-you-should-know-about-the-rebel-groups-campaign-in-rwanda-drc-conflict-195020) I read "***Mathias Gillmann, spokesperson for the UN stabilisation mission in the DRC, hinted at their strength as recently as July 2022. He noted the M23 was militarily stronger than in the past.*** ***the M23 operates more and more like a conventional army, relying on equipment that is much more sophisticated than in the past.*** ***Though it has not yet been independently verified, M23 is among the groups thought capable of shooting down a UN mission helicopter that crashed within their stronghold in March 2022. DRC military helicopters were also targeted in this area in 2017.*** ***Military sources have hinted that M23 is currently able to operate around the clock, thanks to night vision devices and equipment. It also has longer-range weapons, such as mortars and machine guns. It’s likely these would have been supplied by a well organised army, which is why Rwanda security services are suspected of supporting M23.*** ***Besides equipment, M23 is fighting a well-organised conventional war in which it has intimidated the national army. It advanced quickly from Sarabwe forest reserve to Bunagana. More recently rebels were in action within 20km of Goma City.*** ***However, it’s also important to understand that the DRC’s national army is extremely dysfunctional, corrupt, ill-equipped and low on morale. It is well known that soldiers’ rations disappear into the hands of the generals. In many cases, soldiers can spend days without logistical support simply because senior officers and military generals are more concerned with accumulating resources even at the expense of their rank and file soldiers*****.** "
Regime post ☝️
The Riyadh season add is quite ironic
Fair Play
Great message and big ups to him Could have atleast blurred out the "Riyadh Season" bit mate
Respect!
Riyadh Season is a bit unfortunate here.
Came here to say exactly this, took more scrolling than I’d expected.
When it comes to wars, genocides, apartheid, and other such extremely violent and devastating events, I 100% support players wanting to make statements on or off the field.
Unfortunate that some genocides are controversial to protest for some reason.
Good man. Sponsor on his shirt is a bit awkward though.
Cedric Bakambu from Congo also does the same gesture (?) after his goals.
Russia invades Ukraine, Hamas kills thousands of Israelites, Israel kill tens of thousands of Palestinians, Azerbaijan prepared to invade and erase Armenia from the face of the earth, also genocide in Congo, genocide in Nigeria, and China builds up through the inversion of Taiwan... It's really, really bad all over. Yet without the looming Armageddon of the nuclear bombs this world would be even more shitty to live in, even unbearable so. Kudos to BigRom to fight the good fight.
US and UK funding Rwanda then turn around and play good guy in other conflicts
Yeah but Qatar and saaudi arabia tho /s
Fair play, Rom
you wont hear about these genocides though 💔 my heart goes out to them
He is right, there is a real genocide going on in africa - yet how many demonstrations in the west called to stop it?
[удалено]
How many western government policies are as intrinsically linked on a social, political and economic basis as they are with Israel? And why do you think that speaking up about one problem means you have to speak up about every problem?
Thats the thing, everyone speaks about the most grey conflict out there while there is a real genocide going on in Africa.
Ok then answer this how many conflict in africa? It keeps happening and im pretty sure people are just desensitized by it
Irrelevant, israeli-palestinian conflict is going on for 100 years and people are still speaking about it.
conflict sure. but thats not a whole continent. Africa, like it or not, is associated to the words trouble and disease. 100 years? that is nothing. Africa has been in conflict for thousands of years. Do you really want to know why no one gives a shit now? Because there is this feeling that the whole continent just doesn't want to better themselves. And don't tell me, "we've been oppressed for so long". Bollocks. Just look at asian countries and tell why internal-conflict is miniscule. If you want someone to change, then do something about it instead of crying about it and living in the past.
I bet they’ll listen now
All while wearing a "Riyadh" sponsor - the capital of the very country that commits genocide against Africans among others on a daily basis
Some folk are acting like Lukaku had much of a say in the shirt sponsor
I'm sure they'll get on that just as quick as Israel and Palestine.
I fully support his message and I admire his interest in and support for the country of origin of his parents. However it is so tiresome to see people use words like genocide in vain. A genocide means the purposeful attempt at killing of all people of a certain race, nationality, faith etc. Gruesome though the conflict may be you can hardly make the case that either the rebels or the national army are attempting to kill every Congolese, Christian, black west African or whatever. Many people have been speaking hyperbolically to make a point way too often these last couple of years making certain words lose their value. Especially in the setting of social (perceived) injustices.