>Before European hegemony africa was the slave hunting ground of muslims

The fact that Africa has been an absolute shithole for the past thousands of years is no secret, nor is it news.

>Then, under European leadership after WWI, you have colonialism in Africa.

Yes, I do in fact know about it. What's interesting to note is that while the conditions weren't good, there was in fact several places where people willingly worked for a decent wagei such as modern-day Ghana (Gold Coast). Slavery had already been abolished by the time the Scramble for Africa began (within the British Empire anyway). Belgium is in much worse light.

I know what went wrong too, but the point I'm making is that the colonisation of Africa wasn't all that bad. Lots of the infrastructure that exists there today was originally built during the colonisation of Africa.

And no, I am not British.

>I assume you know what was wrong with that, defending socialist viewpoints like you do.

What views is it I have that are socialist? Anti-interventionism? Because that's really all I'm arguing against.

>Now, under American hegemony, and largely thanks to constant American milirary and economic support, and just plain free food,

You must be ignorant to not know that all the European countries also contribute with foreign aid and food. This is not unique to the USA. Even bloody Russia does. Please point out where this American "hegemony" in Africa is.

Africa is a continent, excluding a few countries in North Africa, South Africa and one on the western coast, divided by religion, social inequality and corruption. It is the only place in the world that petty tribal wars even happen in the modern world. Do you honestly believe that the major population of Africa even knows where USA is on the map? Some of these countries have a literacy rate of just 20%. Sudan, Chad and Niger are all countries completely torn apart by internal conflict, and you call this American "hegemony"? Educate yourself.

>there's a large number of democracies, an >1000% improvement in money earned for the people living there. I wouldn't say it's stable but it's definitely an improvement.

Yes, Somalia, Eritrea, Congo and Ethiopia are truly great places to live compared to what they were before.

How about no? This assistance is not specific to the USA nor is it helping that much when all the money goes to the wrong people, that is, corrupt officials who take it all for themselves. The only African countries that are managing fairly well are places like South Africa who have had vast development spurred form colonial times.

I daresay current China is doing a lot more for countries like Angola than western foreign aid money does good. What is needed in Africa is not money which goes into corrupt hands. I think foreign investment is much more urgent, and profitable for both. Currently China and organisations like the Red Cross are the ones doing the dirty work. Not USA, and not Europe.

>After WWI, British forces took over and administered India. Whilst I'm not quite ready to say this was a universal good, it was a definite improvement over the previous situation. This united India like it had never been united since over a millenium and built the state infrastructure that made the current India possible. This changed the life of 10-20% of India from subsistence farming to an actual reasonable existence.

Yes, it really was an improvement from the old.

>With American (mostly economic) and British (mostly military) support the current India was created : the world's largest democracy. It was recently celebrated that 50% of India has been lifted out of destitution.

The UK has invested billions of pounds into supporting the current India for decades now. They've not provided military support, because India is VERY capable of doing that themselves. Need I remind you that India's strongest allies have been the UK and the Soviet Union (now Russia) for several decades now? Need I remind you that Indian military equipment is either exclusively Russian, or developed by themselves?

The USA has done about nothing for India. In fact, during the cold war, the two were enemies.

>Do you really believe the idea that liberals espouse, that forward progress happens automatically in all circumstances because the clock is advancing ?

I have not made that claim. I have made the claim that particularly after WW2 the world is entering a repeatedly globalised state due to ease of commerce and free trade agreements. This can easily be reversed if something triggers the reverse, but I really doubt it will turn around unless we end up in a new global war.

>For the love of God, read some history

I have, and I know that German interventionism (that is, Kaiser Wilhelm II's "World Politics" idea) was one of the biggest causes of WWI.

>what would have happened in Eastern Europe if America didn't have nukes aimed at Moskow ? The short story : Germany would have a Russian border right now, which would be armed to the teeth. That would have destroyed the economic progress in Europe of the last 30-40 years at least.

NATO != Murrica

I am in complete favour of European military alliances. It defends European nations against invasions, and it keeps us together instead of making us fight each other due to split alliances all over the place like WW1 and WW2.

>Now imagine not just that one event, but like a reading of 20th century history will tell you, an event like that every 2-3 years. Can you imagine what would happen ? Can you imagine what would happen if Russia, or China, or Japan, or ... had global hegemony ?

India and China are both two nations that are more concerned with themselves rather than what some anti-American terrorist group is doing i Iraq.

>Do you really believe that ?

You do not understand the concept of globalisation. The very fact that right now there's dozens of planes flying an Europe-America route is a sign of globalisation. There's even more cargo ships sailing the same route, and you deny the increasingly globalised economy? For God's sake, more than 20% of American government debt is held across the Pacific Ocean, and this is not globalisation you say?

>Answer me this : why isn't the Central African Republic exporting loads of fish ? Do you think the problem is isolationism ?

No. I think the main reason the Central African Republic isn't exporting fish is because it happens to be in the middle of a desert with no access to the coast.

Aside from that, the economy in Africa in general is very poor. This is not news, nor is the African economies well-being necessary for increasing globalisation to take place.

>To read about a worst case scenario, read about the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, and the rise of islam and piracy and constant genocide in the centuries following that. It will show you what can go wrong with globalization, and it will show you how long such a problem takes to fix.

There were LOADS of problems during the existence of the Western Roman Empire. The world was full of conflict at that time too.

Even so, the Western Roman Empire was not christian. This religion spread in Europe after the collapse of that empire, mostly because the persecution came to a complete stop. Christianity, as I am sure you know, is in the same religious family as Islam and Judaism. Moreover, after the collapse there were still stable empires in the world, such as the Byzantine Empire that collapsed because of relentless Ottoman assault.

You also seem to ignore the Holy Roman Empire, which was established later, but also had many long periods of stability.

>But generally look up the situation at the end of the 19th century (that's 120 years ago, not exactly an eternity), and ask yourself why globalisation didn't happen, despite America, and quite a few other countries, really, really, really trying to make it work.

Define globalisation.

Regardless, this has gone FAR off the point. I have made the point that military interventionism is something that breeds instability. It did so leading up to WW1, it did so inbetween the two wars, and it did so in the modern Middle East too due to Soviet and American interventionism. Military interventionism to accomplish one nation's goals has ALWAYS fucked over everyone else.

I do not want globalisation, which seems to be your main problem with what I said. I simply made the point that one nation cannot lead all. Only if there was a global government would the entire world be lead by one entity. Currently, the only government which does intervene to a great extent happens to be the US government. Since the article was about the US and how it's "falling from its glory", I voiced my opinion on that I think it'd be a good thing if the USA stopped messing with others. It would be a good thing if no nations intervened excessively with others.

Interventionism by the USA has had many negative effects, some of which I mentioned in my first post. The USA has many internal problems that needs to be solved rather than having occupation forces in over 1000 US military bases around the world. I have made very specific points, and I don't see why I have to argue about the development of African colonies to discuss the points I have made.

Also, don't call people socialists just because they happen to disagree with you. That is beyond pathetic.