Will Canada respond to the Ivory Coast?

[geo]

48th...
glad you're a supporter of what some would categorize as being Republican (Dubya) style diplomacy

(and if the US ever dissagrees with Cdn policy, I guess that means that it's OK to force it upon us too)

 

[M Feetham]

Hey Go!!!
You make a good point, I should have said that before the Dutch colonized the country and made one minority group more powerful than a majority group they brought broad levels of dissent and hatred into the picture. After they left and the balance of power shifted Voila!! Genocide. More specifically in pre colonial times, the different tribes fought for hunting lands, food, territory, and mates. Much the same as any one else in the world, however they generally did not practice the mass slaughter of every living member of a group. That is more a European/North American tactic. By no means do I beleive that Rwanda was a success. I am sorry if that is the impression I gave. If you have points for me, I am always happy to learn. Thanks.

 

[George Wallace]

....... Much the same as any one else in the world, however they generally did not practice the mass slaughter of every living member of a group. That is more a European/North American tactic.

What an odd statement to make.  What do you have to back up this statement?  This isn't another "Blame the White Man" theory is it?  If it is, did they learn this from the White Man, in this case the Dutch, or from somewhere else? Seems to me, recalling the films Zulu, Zulu Dawn, and other text, etc., depicting the history of Africa during the British Empires incursions, that African tribes were quite adept at massacring their foes.

Oh! Well, I suppose it could be I haven't kept up to date with "Revisionist History".

 

[48Highlander]

Feethams post reminded me of a speech by Michael Crichton entitled "Enivronmentalism as Religion".  Most of the speech isn't relevant to the current topic, but this one excert fits in nicely:

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.

 

[M Feetham]

My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule. They would take slaves and wives and pratice ritual cannabalism, but not wipe out entire tribes just for revenge. If I am wrong correct me. I am not afraid to learn something if I am in error.
Thanks.

 

[48Highlander]

My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule. They would take slaves and wives and pratice ritual cannabalism, but not wipe out entire tribes just for revenge. If I am wrong correct me. I am not afraid to learn something if I am in error.
Thanks.

Are you serious?  Have you been paying attention over the last few years?  Rwanda?  Ethiopia?  Darfur (Sudan)?  Do you think that the sort of mass-slaughter that occurs in Africa these days is something new?  Let me guess:  the White Man taught them to commit genocide, right?

 

[George Wallace]

My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule.

I might point out that no one else practiced genocide as a rule, either.

Your argument that the Europeans, Americans, and Asians introduced it to them really doesn't hold.  You have no documentation to support or deny that hypothesis.

 

[GO!!!]

My point is that yes they fought and killed, but they did not practice genocide as a rule. They would take slaves and wives and pratice ritual cannabalism, but not wipe out entire tribes just for revenge. If I am wrong correct me. I am not afraid to learn something if I am in error.
Thanks.

What do you think the effect on a population is when all of the young men are killed, mutilated and/or enslaved, the women are raped/killed/taken as wives, some of the people are eaten, and the elderly are left to starve?

I'll give you a hint - it means that that group will soon cease to exist, having lost the ability to reproduce, feed or protect itself. THIS IS GENOCIDE, whether or not the people involved knew the word!

Slaves were only taken because they could be sold or put to work - this was not civility at work, it was pure economics.

 

[M Feetham]

Point taken from most of you, however for George Wallace, could you tell me then what happened to the indigenous natives in NFLD, not those that live there today the original tribe. Everyone else thanks for the information. What a hostile bunch of wannabes.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Point taken from most of you, however for George Wallace, could you tell me then what happened to the indigenous natives in NFLD, not those that live there today the original tribe. Everyone else thanks for the information. What a hostile bunch of wannabes.

Welcome to the warning system. Please reread the site guidelines.

 

[3rd Herd]

What an odd statement to make.  What do you have to back up this statement?  This isn't another "Blame the White Man" theory is it?  If it is, did they learn this from the White Man, in this case the Dutch, or from somewhere else? Seems to me, recalling the films Zulu, Zulu Dawn, and other text, etc., depicting the history of Africa during the British Empires incursions, that African tribes were quite adept at massacring their foes.

Oh! Well, I suppose it could be I haven't kept up to date with "Revisionist History".

Not revisionist but:

By the end of the 18th century, only 150 years after the arrival of the Dutch at the Cape of Good Hope, thousands of Bushmen (San) had been shot and killed, and many more were forced to work for their colonial captors. The new British government vowed to stop the fighting. They hoped to “civilize” the Bushmen by encouraging them to adopt a more agricultural lifestyle but were unsuccessful. By the 1870s the last Bushmen of the Cape were hunted to extinction. Other Bushman groups were able to survive the European encroachment despite continued threats. The last license to hunt Bushmen was reportedly issued in Namibia by the South African government in 1936. (National Geographic) Additionally black colonists were just as guilty in the bushman hunt due primarily to a clash of cultures. The black colonists were herders, while the nomadic bushman did not have a concept of personal property. A cow is a food source to be used by who ever hunts it brought the bushman in to direct conflict with the herders who regard the cow as personal property. A very similar analogy to the settlement of the American west. In both the hunting of indigenous for sport and bounty and the clash of cultural values.

As for the slavery argument:
"The dominant pattern of enslavement was well described by Olaudah Equiano, who in his 18th-century autobiography described his capture as a young boy in southern Nigeria, and his subsequent sale and resale to a succession of African masters, before finally being sold to Europeans."

Another perspective:

When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it’s precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa.

Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: "Africa wins again." This is usually said after an incident such as:

a) a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason
b) a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn’t all-powerful, you see)
c) an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks
d) a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn’t extend to the other tribe
e) the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe
f) etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

Source: Kim du Toit on syntynyt ja elänyt Afrikassa. Hän emigroitui Johannesburgista Yhdysvaltoihin vuonna 1986. Essee on julkaistu alunperin

The BeothuK​

The extinction of the Beothuk one could easily describe as being proverbially caught in the middle. With the settlement of the coastal areas by initially Portuguese fisherman the Boethuk were forced to move inland away from their traditional food sources.The Portuguese took to hunting the Beothuk as early as 1501 as documented in the travels of Gaspar Corte-Real. With the continued influx of European fishing fleets in the late middle to late 16th century again the genre of clash of cultures rears up with a quote from early English fisherman that the " Beothuk stole anything the Europeans didn't have nailed down, and the fishermen treated the Beothuk with contempt, distrust, and even hatred." Leading to the expedition of one John Guy in 1610 who when approached by hundreds of Beothuk ready to trade he fired his cannons at them. Some historians believe that this caused the Beothuk to forever mistrust the British.

If dealling with the Europeans was not bad enough the Beothuk also had to contend with their rivals to the south, the Micmacs. As the Micmac migration(1613) moved north they were brought into direct conflict with the Beothuk over the rich New Foundland fishing grounds. Armed with modern weapons from the French the Beothuk were once again driven inland away from sources of food. In conjunction was the increased permanent settlement of the shores by British colonists. Add in the various wars between the French and the British over the new territory there was little left of the traditional ways for the Beothuk. A census of 1827 failed to locate a single Beothuk coexisting in the wild. The last known living Beothuk was Nancey Shanawhdht who died in 1829. (Source, my grade eight and nine social studies teaching notes and the video series "Canada, A Peoples History)

 

[beentheredoneit]

One must ask if several African Nations are in the "business of peacekeeping" or in "peacekeeping for the business!

 

[Edward Campbell]

The answer to the headline question, “Will Canada respond to the Ivory Coast?” may have more to do with domestic politics than foreign policy.

Côte d’Ivoire (as it styles itself) is a mainstay of la Francophonie and despite that fact that Canada has no vital interests anywhere in Africa, especially not in Côte d’Ivoire, it may be desirable for Canada to take ‘some’ visible role there, in order to support Québec’s world-view.  As nearly as I can tell, from a cursory review of the French-Canadian press (Le Droit and Le Devoir, a couple of times a week), there is little pressure for Canada to take any military action but that could change, as we all know, after one or two TV reports.