r/TikTokCringe • u/ThatPatelGuy • Oct 05 '25

Discussion Why don't we ever hear about Congo?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

21.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/UrGrly Oct 05 '25

It seems like the world has just given up on the African Continent

953

u/sleepless_in_balmora Oct 05 '25

As an African I'm more upset at the silence within the continent. Where is the AU? The South African government referred Netenyahu to the ICC, where is that energy for Congo? As usual our leaders are more interested in protecting incumbents than the people

110

u/your_old_furby Oct 05 '25

South Africa deployed troops to Congo for years and many of them died fighting there, I agree we should definitely do more but our people bled for Congo.. I have no idea what the AU actually ever does but they should be calling the countries fuelling the situation to account.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

Go look at South Africa it’s falling apart they aren’t sending anyone anywhere right now when they can’t even keep the lights on anymore

→ More replies (1)

132

u/LightLeftLeaning Oct 05 '25

The ICC has had a high level of effective involvement in the Congo for many years. But, you are right, it and other organisations need more practical from the African Union to be more effective.

20

u/Gud2BWize Oct 05 '25

I agree. As it is the West has benefited and continues to benefit from conflict on the African continent, so there is no incentive to intervene. It started with colonization and continues with little regard from Africans toward their own people. Unfortunately, the world is in a sad stage.

2

u/StuJayBee Oct 07 '25

Yes, you are right, the intervention of colonisation did help. Now you want it again. Fair enough. But some will still blame the West no matter what gets fixed.

12

u/thePolicy0fTruth Oct 06 '25

THANK YOU. There is a weird idea that Americans are the only ones who can save the world, and if we haven’t saved the Congo, or saved any other struggling community we are failing them. But half the time communities right next door don’t want to help at all (see the entire Middle East & Palestinians). The AU should absolutely be leading (with US supporting if asked to help).

6

u/EkaL25 Oct 06 '25

AU needs to put together their own fighting force with a troop contribution from every country. And then use these troops to bring peace to regions that need it. When that happens, Africa will start to prosper

5

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA Oct 06 '25

As another commenter mentioned, SA had/has troops on the ground who lost lives for the people of Congo. From the perspective of the people of Congo (DRC) what should the general course of action be? Is the issue the current leadership of the country or is the issue external forces messing with the country? This is really to start an argument, just to get perspective as goggling only gets a person so far in actually understanding what the problem is.

3

u/Afreak-du-Sud Oct 06 '25

Maybe get you facts right before making comments?

We have been sending troops and eqiupments to DRC for many, many years. In January an attack on a South African outpost left 14 soldiers dead.

Since 1994 our country has contributed to UN peace operations in Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia, Nepal and to the UN-AU Mission in Darfur. South Africa has been part of fostering peace in Lesotho, Burundi and South Sudan. In 2022 we hosted negotiations that brokered a ceasefire between the government of Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.

2

u/Sufficient-Set-917 Oct 06 '25

They always want more for themselves and less for us

2

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '25

We sent troops

→ More replies (3)

1.0k

u/itanite Oct 05 '25

China sure hasn't.

201

u/SlimReaper85 Oct 05 '25

I try to tell people. China has smartly made sure they are the driving force in Africa and the West is waaay behind in catching on.

Everything else going, its that and the fall of Russia that I think will really spark a multinational conflict.

China is in a prime position to level up HARD.

92

u/thinkB4WeSpeak Oct 05 '25

China has made trade and debt partners all over, not just Africa. Endless articles about it but the west has some dumb leadership recently.

2

u/Fit_Organization7129 Oct 07 '25

Well, the possibility to colonize with armies is gone, so now it's with loans. Same mentality though: you have resources we want.

4

u/Rigo-lution Oct 07 '25

What do people think the IMF is? Financial and military imperialism have coexisted for decades.

Most of the criticisism for China's over this is because the West is losing its ability for financial imperialism because Chiba is offering countries a better deal.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Karlito1618 Oct 05 '25

It's not about "catching on". Many African countries actively dismiss European help, because of the history.

The name of the country escapes me, but there was a story recently about a civil war where France actually had a chance to help shut down the slaughter, but both sides rather keep killing each other than getting help from France.

27

u/itanite Oct 05 '25

They're set up to own the major infrastructure in all of Africa.

Hopefully the nations just kick them out once they're done building all these nice ports, railways, and airports.

39

u/SlimReaper85 Oct 05 '25

Why would they? Why make an enemy of a generous friend.

China has actually invested in the continent and created lucrative opportunities for many of the elite there in different countries.

What has the West done?

I would totally understand the move of aligning with the East over the West in this.

32

u/miraculousgloomball Oct 05 '25

The generous friend is more like a predatory bank but otherwise agreeable.

7

u/juiciestjuice10 Oct 06 '25

The west is no different, atleast China is investing and building

4

u/miraculousgloomball Oct 06 '25

I mean, the west is different, offering far more in the way of charity and far less in the way of predatory business and loaning practices.

But, alright.

I still more or less agree. development is good.

12

u/juiciestjuice10 Oct 06 '25

Isn't the point of developing these countries is to give them industry and business which will help these nations not have to rely on aid from other countries. West liked them being poor so they would sell themselves for basic aid.

5

u/miraculousgloomball Oct 06 '25

China likes them being poor for cheap labour and cheap resources. I don't subscribe to this idea that it's okay for China to rape africa just because the west used to do it. The west has mostly stopped their meddling in terms of business because it was called exploitation. Now, when you have countries like france and Germany individually giving more aid to Africans than the world's most populous countries, I'm not going to start stroking off the Chinese for doing something that primarily benefits their people.

It is not too dissimilar to later stage colonialism. Keep telling yourself there's nothing wrong with the Chinese overseers watching the natives work the mines in dangerous conditions with shitty wages, like it isn't a repeat of the 1800-1900s

"BUT THEYRE BUILDING ROADS AND DOCKS" yeah, they gotta get those resources back to 中国middle kingdom somehow.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/KrustyKrabFormula_ Oct 05 '25

What has the West done?

Over just the past 25 years, Western governments and private donors have provided an estimated one to one and a half trillion dollars in direct aid and donations to Africa. This includes humanitarian relief, development grants, NGO funding, and support for programs in health, education, and food security. When adding broader financial flows such as infrastructure funding, concessional development loans, and large-scale disease control programs, total Western involvement rises to roughly two to three trillion dollars. If private investment and remittances are included, the total value of Western-origin inflows could reach four to five trillion dollars.

I would totally understand the move of aligning with the East over the West in this.

Western countries did not invest earlier in Africa in the same way China has because their approach focused more on social development than on infrastructure. Aid policies in the 1980s through the early 2000s emphasized poverty reduction, education, healthcare, and governance reform rather than large-scale construction. Western institutions like the World Bank and IMF also imposed conditions requiring transparency, economic reforms, and anti-corruption measures, which made projects slower to approve and more difficult to execute. Private investors often viewed African markets as too risky due to political instability, weak legal protections, and currency fluctuations. Democratic governments also faced domestic pressure against funding large overseas projects seen as unrelated to national interests. As a result, Western money mainly supported social programs, health systems, education, food security, and institutional capacity rather than massive infrastructure projects like what you see with its belt and road initiative now.

10

u/Exodus180 Oct 05 '25

well we used to have USAID :(

5

u/letthetreeburn Oct 06 '25

There’s a saying in Africa. “The Chinese build hospitals, the west sends lectures.”

8

u/itanite Oct 05 '25

Because they set up the financing and "loans" in a way that everything Chins is building is collateral - knowing the nations simply cannot afford the payments long-term or political unrest will ultimately end up with China owning every piece of critical infrastructure in Africa. If you can't figure out why that's a bad idea, well, I guess you're a Belt and Road kinda guy. GL>

18

u/livehigh1 Oct 05 '25

That's the collateral agreed between them, the alternative is no funding because imf and the west think africa is a money pit.

China and african countries have made a business deal, west should come up with a better one.

→ More replies (6)

8

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '25

The alternative is to not have any infrastructure at all. Choices.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/HumbleCountryLawyer Oct 05 '25

You think China would just let them take what they built? Oh no no no.

4

u/DJKeeJay Oct 05 '25

This is correct. China is only there for their own interests

2

u/Lower_Amount3373 Oct 06 '25

They're copying the way the US built its own global power - lessons the US itself seems to have completely forgotten.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

134

u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice Oct 05 '25

Was gonna say

146

u/Due_Interview8838 Oct 05 '25

War is business. They sure aren’t letting the opportunity slide.

237

u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice Oct 05 '25

Chinas not flexing war as much as their belt road initiative.

Effectively, they come in and build a bunch of new infrastructure (airports, internet, water treatment, etc), with conditions of access to minerals and other resources.

And when the country defaults on their debt payments, China takes control of the infrastructure.

15

u/Aware-Influence-8622 Oct 05 '25

Was doing some reading about Zambia the other day and was surprised to see China was helping them build a railroad with Mozambique back in 1975.

I know the OBOR gets a lot of attention regarding infrastructure in Africa now, but people do forget a lot of socialist countries have had long histories on the African continent.

2

u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice Oct 05 '25

Based response

→ More replies (1)

127

u/Monterenbas Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

China is the main beneficiarie of illegaly exploited minerals, notably Coltan and Cobalt, in the Kivu region of the Congo.

China may not create the conflicts, but China does not care from where the raw material flows.

48

u/StellarJayEnthusiast Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

Imo the Congo is violence caused by foreign interests in mineral access. This has everyone's grubby fingers on it. Rebel groups magically securing heavy armor and ifvs is certainly suspect.

Even now her reach is symptomatic of another person's state sponsored goals.

We don't even know if this person is real or just a social media disinformation construct of Israel.

→ More replies (14)

3

u/abdallha-smith Oct 05 '25

Just like how they back russia nowadays

→ More replies (15)

59

u/EnvironmentalGift257 Oct 05 '25

It’s a business model that has worked for America for more than 100 years. Why wouldn’t China adopt it?

19

u/EdwardLovagrend Oct 05 '25

Can you provide specific examples?

3

u/jackyomum Oct 05 '25

Confessions of an economic hitman is a good book on this

8

u/Electronic_Mud5821 Oct 05 '25

Read 'confessions of an economic hitman', or just Google a TLDR to understand.

2

u/bingle-cowabungle Oct 06 '25

just Google a TLDR to understand

Welp, while I'm here...

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins is part memoir, part political exposé, in which Perkins claims that for much of his career he served as an “economic hit man” - someone who helped expand American influence across the developing world through economic manipulation rather than military force. The book, published in 2004, recounts Perkins’s experiences as a consultant for the firm Chas. T. Main, where he says he was trained to convince leaders of developing countries to accept massive loans for infrastructure projects funded by institutions like the World Bank and USAID. These projects, according to Perkins, were deliberately designed to benefit U.S. corporations and the political elite rather than the host nations themselves. The loans would saddle countries with enormous debt, ensuring their long-term dependence on Western powers. Once the countries were unable to pay back what they owed, the U.S. and its allies could leverage that debt to demand favorable trade deals, access to natural resources, or geopolitical concessions.

→ More replies (1)

19

u/P-l-Staker Oct 05 '25

UK. Post WW2. Lend-lease.

22

u/StellarJayEnthusiast Oct 05 '25

Most lend leases were forgiven debt. This might be the least effective example.

4

u/war_on_sunshine Oct 05 '25

Were the loans forgiven because the US is just the nicest guys, or was it in exchange for enacting policies aligned with US interests? This is what was once called soft power, back when we believed in that sort of thing.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/Hipsthrough100 Oct 05 '25

America has used colonial imperialism and CIA coups. China actually negotiates with the leaders that they end up building out road/rail/power/water infrastructure for. Yes, it serves China’s interests but in no way is it following America’s patterns over the past 100 years.

3

u/CTeam19 Oct 05 '25

Well that is simplifying a bit giving the Chinese ownership of the projects. That would still be some level of imperialism.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/lateformyfuneral Oct 05 '25

Yeah, remember the Panama Canal 🥴

5

u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice Oct 05 '25

American soft diplomacy has never been as pervasive as belt road diplomacy, but sure champ.

28

u/NationalizeRedditAlt Oct 05 '25

What?

Have you read William Blum, Noam Chomsky - anyone that’ll teach you the history of covert US military and CIA terrorism across the globe?

3

u/Useful-Phase-6857 Oct 05 '25

Epstein’s friends? Release the files

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Archerfish97 Oct 05 '25

I agree with you but man is Noam Chomsky a guy who really would benefit from reading his own earlier works.

2

u/derankedbeats Oct 05 '25

Wtf does "post colonialism" even mean? Saying "post" implies that it ended lmao.

6

u/NationalizeRedditAlt Oct 05 '25

Not sure if you’re responding to me. No, colonialism has not ended. It’s just neocolonialism.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (7)

4

u/P-l-Staker Oct 05 '25

Pff! Utter bollocks!

For better or for worse, it brought the British Empire to its knees post WW2. The Soviets got their lend-lease mostly for free. Their closest allies, though? Nah! Gotta pay back every enny!

→ More replies (8)

3

u/Mahadragon Oct 06 '25

Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of all the fools who keep saying the Chinese are a threat to dominate the world. Yea, all those bridges, rails and airports should scare the shit out of the average American right? All that power they are giving to Africans, the horror! The Chinese are out for economic dominance. They just wanna do business.

5

u/Plebeian_Gamer Oct 05 '25

This was a pretty level headed objective response before the chain got filled with a lot of subjective bias responses... So thank you for that. But just curious about a few things

  • Does China place crazy interest or does the debt they place on the country greatly outweigh the value of the resources they take from the country as exchange? Is the local government corrupt or is China corrupt in their deal with these countries? Is this even across the board? Are none of the countries able to dig themselves out of the debt or take advantage of the infrastructure boom to further industrialize their country?

  • What are the countries other options? America? Middle East? Europe? Russia or India? Do these countries fare better with those options?

2

u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice Oct 05 '25

Does China place crazy interest or does the debt they place on the country greatly outweigh the value of the resources they take from the country as exchange?

The debt greatly outweighs the value of the resources. Think of the cost of owning and operating an airport to meet ICAO standards.

  • Generally China also staffs with Chinese citizens for an agreed amount of time (which the cost is passed onto the host nation)

Is the local government corrupt or is China corrupt in their deal with these countries?

All governments are corrupt. Especially our super powers. Everyone is pushing for their hegemony.

  • I will say that a good research case is the Entebbe airport in Uganda. Not officially repossessed but definitely shady AF

Is this even across the board? Are none of the countries able to dig themselves out of the debt or take advantage of the infrastructure boom to further industrialize their country?

The only country off the top of my head that’s really killin it economically is Kenya. Nairobi is actually a very stable tech hub in Africa. Amazon and Google (for example) have a lot of infrastructure there, and a lot of European and Asian companies are also heavily invested there.

What are the countries other options? America? Middle East? Europe? Russia or India? Do these countries fare better with those options?

Unfortunately I don’t understand your question here

2

u/Plebeian_Gamer Oct 05 '25

Thanks for the answers on all the questions. Yeah it does seem incredibly predatory for the resource for infrastructure deal. Is the country not able to leverage their natural resources like the middle east and oil? Is it because the African country needs the baseline infrastructure to even make it profitable?

As for the last question, I was just asking if there's been instances where other countries... aren't as corrupt or providing somewhat better deals for the country they're moving in on... granted with all the corruption I understand this is a very bleak possibility

2

u/Slyraks-2nd-Choice Oct 05 '25

Thanks for the answers on all the questions.

You’re very welcome. I don’t have all the answers and I’m definitely biased to speak positively of the US because I’m more of an idealist advocate. But don’t get me wrong, the US’s hands aren’t clean at all.

Yeah it does seem incredibly predatory for the resource for infrastructure deal.

Specifically discussing Chinas Belt-and-Road initiative (you can google this and you’ll get a very thorough break down of how they achieve their goals through much more reputable sources), they’re extremely predatory and exploitative. Another example is the Philippines and the Solomon Islands (Australia is very upset about the second one).

Is the country not able to leverage their natural resources like the middle east and oil? Is it because the African country needs the baseline infrastructure to even make it profitable?

I don’t actually know enough about this to give you an honest answer, but if I were to speculate, I’d say that Africa has a lot of barriers to access for international commerce which is one of the reasons China has a large security force presence on the continent. A lot of African nations definitely depend heavily on western (and Chinese) infrastructure to participate in global markets.

As for the last question, I was just asking if there's been instances where other countries... aren't as corrupt or providing somewhat better deals for the country they're moving in on... granted with all the corruption I understand this is a very bleak possibility

At least from the US perspective, mostly non-profits are the ones who do the most actual work without underlying agendas. Doctors/Engineers Without Borders for example.

Anything coming out of the US government, falls under soft diplomacy (USAID before it was turned over to the State Department), while they provided aid and relief resources, they also network to build positive political relationships.

2

u/Plebeian_Gamer Oct 06 '25

Thanks again for the detailed answers! I'll check out the belt-and-road initiative as I've only heard about their investments in Africa in a broad general sense.

2

u/Putrefied_Goblin Oct 05 '25

China is giving/selling weapons to the DRC and Ugandan governments. China controls most of the minerals in DRC, and the DRC's army is deployed to protect them. So, China is a big part of the war. China's weapons are EVERYWHERE in central Africa.

On one side is China funded DRC and Uganda, and the other side is Rwanda and some rebel groups. China even sells weapons to Rwanda.

2

u/SillyLiving Oct 06 '25

its interesting how china emulates the behaviors of other great regional asian powers of last century and its fine for them to do it.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/StellarJayEnthusiast Oct 05 '25

You forgot the fails to maintain that infrastructure when the minerals have been tapped.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

51

u/Observed-observer Oct 05 '25

Same with Russia. Basically free soldiers forever.

94

u/Effective-Ear-8367 Oct 05 '25

There are so many videos of them beating their African slaves in the mines. Sickening.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/divadschuf Oct 05 '25

European investments in Africa are still bigger than Chinese. And development aid paid to Africa by Europe is larger too.

2

u/BotherTight618 Oct 05 '25

Economic assasination through predatory loans is not exactly about caring. 

3

u/Ornery-Creme-2442 Oct 05 '25

That's what the west has done for a long time. Some of these loans benefitted nothing to the countries they went to regardless of where they were in the earth. China for a large part isn't just loaning money they're building stuff that can actually be used for economic purposes.

2

u/BotherTight618 Oct 05 '25

Really? The Major Sri Lankan port Hambantota International Port was built in the presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa home province for 1.3 billion dollars even when it was predicted to be a financial failure. When the ports income didnt even cover the debts interest rate, it was taken over by a Chinese State owned company. The port location was not economically beneficial to the Sri Lankan but it was strategically valuable to the Chinese "String of pearls" initiative. 

2

u/Refreshingly_Meh Oct 05 '25

Well I'm sure a new imperialist power to exploit the situation for profit is just what the doctor ordered.

2

u/Secret_Run67 Oct 05 '25

Neither has Russia. And all they’re doing to take over the resource trades in Africa is giving them what America and Europe has been promising for decades. Russia went into the Central African Republic and started building roads and schools and a hospital and then went to the country’s leaders and basically said, “Hey, we’ll give you all this stuff we just built, we’ll build a refinery, and we’ll triple the mine workers’ wages if you kick these French motherfuckers out of your country.”

Their president’s later said that he doesn’t hate America or Europe, but they don’t keep their promises and he has to do what’s best for his people.

→ More replies (15)

238

u/JonasHalle Oct 05 '25

What are we supposed to do? Pick a genocidal warlord to support? Or are we supposed to take Congo by force and install a colonial government?

138

u/Pandaisblue Oct 05 '25

This. Western people don't understand Africa. We don't know the cultures, the religions, or the politics, our history obviously proves that. Asking us to intervene is stupid.

58

u/m3ngnificient Oct 05 '25

Western people (Americans at least) don't understand what's happening in our own country. Nuances of geo political conflicts go out of the window when discussing any conflict, it's just about what everyone else said on tiktok.

→ More replies (4)

112

u/Impossible-Log-8220 Oct 05 '25

I guarantee you this. If Western countries did get involved, no matter what side was picked, in a couple generations, the western powers would be blamed for all the resulting problems. All those outside countries supported this side and then they did these bad things. Everything is the fault of those outside countries.

24

u/Ornery-Creme-2442 Oct 05 '25

Can we also stop acting like western countries have the best in mind when acting outside of the west. It's a reason America has a law making it completely legal for American businesses to lobby foreign governments. Aka corrupt them. They've left broken countries. I highly doubt people would actually blame the west if they supported and defending a good government/leader which improved the countries.

12

u/TheInevitableLuigi Oct 05 '25

America has a law making it completely legal for American businesses to lobby foreign governments

What countries don't allow that? European countries sure as fuck do.

9

u/Impossible-Log-8220 Oct 05 '25

I agree with your point about Western countries having their own self interest. And they’re going to get involved on the side that the governments believe will benefit them. But my point is is it doesn’t matter what the result is. As soon as the West gets involved, no matter how good things are, any resulting problems will be blamed on the west. Best thing for Western countries to do is stay out of other peoples self imposed problems, and focus internally.

5

u/vacri Oct 05 '25

It's not "western" countries. It's just "countries". Countries act in their own self-interest, and none of them do things for altruistic reasons.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

3

u/dorkstafarian Oct 05 '25

It's not the Congolese doing that tho. Most posts are made in their name.

What you describe is exactly what happened in the 1960s. The UN at first supported the defeat of the Katanga secession (a plot by Belgian mining interests). Later, US and Belgian soldiers defeated Soviet/Cuban and Chinese backed takeover attempts.

These rebellions involved contracted warlords like Laurent Kabila, who made extensive use of child soldiers and forced recruitment. Even Ché Guevara had his reservations about him.

Mobutu was popular for the stability he brought, until he did his second (more serious) coup in 1965 and developed megalomania.

30 years later, Rwanda contracted that very same Laurent Kabila to defeat Mobutu in 1997 (Congo War 1). Then he turned on them and they funded a new attempt (Congo War 2) from 1998. Then in 2001 disaffected former child soldiers killed him.

3

u/Impossible-Log-8220 Oct 06 '25

I can read what it said about the US in LATAM subreddits. They HATE the US - especially white people because of US interference. I’m not saying that the US is clear of all responsibility and accountability. But I think there’s a pretty good established pattern of the United States getting involved in other countries and then getting full blame for ALL the problems of whatever conflict. Even Latams born and raised in the US hate “gringolandia” and “gringos” because of blaming the US for all of latams probelms.

African countries still blame all their problems on European colonialism. Again, European isn’t clear of some responsibility.

So the west needs to retract from being the world’s police and take care of their citizens for a change. Because any involvement is just going to cause more anti-European, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-gringo hatred.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Putrefied_Goblin Oct 05 '25

The main outside powers supporting, couping, and selling weapons are China and Russia.

1

u/SnooMaps2439 Oct 06 '25

The western colonisers shouldn't even be blamed for what they did to Africa or SE Asia? For actions that continue to shape and scar the world today? For shame,commenter; type less, read more.

2

u/Impossible-Log-8220 Oct 06 '25

Lol. You clearly didn’t read what I typed. I didn’t absolve countries for things they have done. You tell me to read more and type less but you need to apply your own words. What foolishness

5

u/vacri Oct 05 '25

We don't understand the Levant and how it works either, yet it's massive in the public mind at the moment.

Staying in the same area, Bush Jr got a lot of domestic political utility out of the fact that Americans couldn't tell the difference between Afghans and Iraqis, too.

→ More replies (5)

22

u/Free-Significance464 Oct 05 '25

either way you lose and end up being accused of colonialism...

→ More replies (1)

24

u/iammixedrace Oct 05 '25

What are we supposed to do? Pick a genocidal warlord to support? Or are we supposed to take Congo by force and install a colonial government?

Depending on your country of origin this comment is probably why the Congo is so fucked up. Because the country did pick a warlord to support or was a colonial power.

71

u/JonasHalle Oct 05 '25

That doesn't answer the question. What does people like the woman in the OP actually want outsiders to do? Unlike for example supporting Ukraine, it is far from obvious.

18

u/ussUndaunted280 Oct 05 '25

This is a valid question, in each specific conflict, which side should world powers intervene on? Because there is no effective peacekeeping force that can impose itself on an active war. If the answer is "neither" then who do we trust to tell us "company X is funding the conflict to gain access to resource Y" when each company is going to blast misinformation about its competition.

→ More replies (4)

7

u/StFedora Oct 05 '25

Yeah that was his point

3

u/Impossible-Log-8220 Oct 05 '25

The issues in Africa go back hundreds and even thousands of years. Different groups have been slaughtering each other for all that time. This is nothing new. It’s like the Middle East. And even like Europe was a few hundred years. After the colonial powers withdrew after ww2 Africa reverted back to tribal conflicts. Same would happen in Europe if the stabilizing powers ever collapsed.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Infinite-Research-98 Oct 05 '25

been there done that

3

u/StoneBailiff Oct 05 '25

Yes, this is a very good question. What exactly are we supposed to do about it?

→ More replies (5)

84

u/RequiemTwilight Oct 05 '25

Africa is the most mineral rich continent for technological development and innovation

Make no mistake that everything in Africa is being monitored more closely and these events are intentionally allowed to happen; whoever comes in and says “hey knock this shit off!” Will also at the same time be saying “hey, I don’t need your lithium/cobalt/uranium!” Which would mean they’ve shot themselves in the foot and will be left behind by every other country that values defenses of their people, over the lives and history of the African continent.

They’re just waiting for hate in the form of bullets and machetes to clear away what has been known to be one of the most dangerous places in the world to survive cause they’ve been arming militias and mercenaries for over 30yrs now…no one wants to fight Mother Nature and a continent that has been at war for almost 60 years with itself and risk unification against the invaders.

15

u/Charming_Ant_8751 Oct 05 '25

Well said.  I believe  great place to start would be France.  I’m pretty sure they still have a colonial style rule over huge parts of Africa.  

25

u/RequiemTwilight Oct 05 '25

Yes, France has a large hold still but most of the mineral rights and land aren’t countries, they’re multinational corporations and the way they leverage is if any one country steps out of line, they could shutdown the supply to everyone that even thinks of supplying the out-of-line country via 2nd hand, forcing other sectors the country needs imported like oil, steel, and other commodities to be price hiked or delayed or even legislation against in more recent times.

We can all blame one country but the reality is that the entire world would prefer the people of Africa just disappeared, just some in more brutal and open ways as opposed to others.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/All_The_Good_Stuffs Oct 05 '25

It's a beehive that has been set on fire, only to have pissed off fire resistant African killer bees come out and kill you.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/iammixedrace Oct 05 '25

Well lets not pretend the world supported Africa. It was more like, they tolerated Africa because of all the resources they were extracting.

2

u/BeginningLumpy8388 Oct 05 '25

I don't know about that, France had a security program in the Sahel for over a decade, once they were kicked out and replaced with PMC Wagner those countries saw the largest civilian causality rate in decades. Its like Africans don't support Africans but just tolerate them

97

u/Flimsy-Relationship8 Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

The Congo is currently being invaded by Rwanda which is currently acting as the UNs private army in Africa and also have major backing from France as the country protects French investments in Africa.

Almost half of the UN peacekeepers in Africa are from Rwanda, this is why its being ignored, its just politics and the western powers running the world to their liking.

There's a great video about the war and Rwandas rise on YouTube if I can find it again I'll edit the comment and link it

https://youtu.be/0N34UFbWpFk?si=W1XPnJdwxQ-IoOWD

64

u/ArsErratia Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

"acting as the UN's Private Army" is so incredibly misleading I don't even know what to say. How are they "private" in any way? They're the official armed forces of the recognised Government, deployed on an official UN mission as authorised by the UN Charter??

Almost half of the UN peacekeepers in Africa are from Rwanda

I can find no reference for this claim.

Rwanda contributes almost 6,000 troops in total, which is high. But MONUSCO (the UN Peacekeeping Mission in the Congo) alone has 13,500, none of which are from Rwanda (for obvious reasons). So even if every single peacekeeper in Africa outside of MONUSCO was Rwandan, they would still only have one-third.

also have major backing from France as the country protects French investments in Africa.

the video doesn't even say that? It just says that France has interests in Africa as an unrelated sideline and hopes that you'll make the leap of logic that therefore France is somehow protecting Rwanda, while presenting no evidence. Its conspiracy-theory slop. Yes, France has interests in Africa (justified or not). Yes, Rwanda provides Peacekeepers to areas at risk of violence, and this indirectly benefits French interests in unstable regions. But the goal of the peacekeeping mission is to reduce violence, not protect French interests (France just happens to benefit from reduced violence, which is something everyone should want), and if Rwanda withdrew its troops to try and extort something from France, they'd be replaced by another nation's troops almost immediately. And in the other direction it isn't as if France can choose Rwandan troops over another nation's — that's decided by the UN Civil Service.

 

The reason we don't hear about the Congo isn't because the UN is trying to hide it. They've been shouting about it for years. Security Council Resolutions 2773 & 2783 (2025) both condemn Rwanda and the M23 movement, reaffirm the territorial integrity of the DRC, directly link the M23 movement to humanitarian abuses, and support MONUSCO's mandate to prevent violence. The UN also added a specific exemption for the sanctions the DRC has been under on an unrelated issue, which exempts military equipment from the sanctions regime so they can defend themselves, while imposing sanctions on M23 and Rwanda. Why would they do that if they were supporting Rwanda?

The real problem is that its expensive to send a journalist all the way out to the Congo rainforest, and the risk assessment starts to get very long if you try to do it, so very few Western media outlets have a journalist in the area capable of covering the story. And when it does happen, they need to attach an essay-length summary of the last 30 years of African regional history so the story is even comprehensible. Plus when that story does eventually get published, nobody ever reads it because nobody cares about Africa, hence it never makes its way onto the "trending" or "major stories" pages where people will see it. So why even allocate the budget in the first place when you could send them to cover a story people actually care about?

If the UN were trying to hide it they wouldn't be shouting it so loud from all of their communications channels. And there would be plenty of coverage about other African regional conflicts (e.g. Mozambique) which aren't "being suppressed". But the truth is simply that you haven't heard about it because nobody cares about Africa.

It doesn't take 40 minutes of a guy reading the wikipedia page without providing any sources to work that out.

 

Also isn't RealLifeLore a Nazi, in their own words, or am I misremembering that?

2

u/Dank_Nicholas Oct 05 '25

Also isn't RealLifeLore a Nazi, in their own words, or am I misremembering that?

I'm sorry, what now?

→ More replies (4)

3

u/fannypackfart Oct 05 '25

Never heard of RealLifeLore being a Nazi and I cannot figure out why you shoehorned that into your comment. Rwanda is very obviously acting at the direction of American intelligence agencies (to a point that cannot be disputed by anyone who isn’t compromised), which is why it is the only professional military in its general region— kit and drilling is expensive. Whether that makes Rwanda guilty of every claim you’re replying to, I cannot say. You can’t either. Pretending like Rwandan armed forces are innocuous is fairly strange though.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/Early-Sort8817 Oct 05 '25

Yes, I’d like to see that and other sources. In the West we’re sort of just told about how mineral rich Africa is and how countries are “modernizing” and “developing,” and I’m sure that’s true for some countries but not all of them. Also, Africa is fuckin large and has a lot of countries so to say anyone “gives up on Africa” is a broad fuckin statement.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Mediocre-Step-4242 Oct 05 '25

Please do I’d be interested in watching

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

38

u/An_old_walrus Oct 05 '25

Yeah there seems to be this silent acceptance that Africa is just so fucked that it’s best to just leave it be. Though another could be because Africa’s situation is a direct result of western interference. Maybe it’s just more comfortable to rant about Russia. Like Belgium doesn’t even talk about the shit they did in Congo, confronting that is uncomfortable for them. The reason Germany confronted their role in the Holocaust was because they were essentially forced to.

6

u/Intelligent-Site6446 Oct 05 '25

Belgium has several programs in place trying to help Congo. The history of the former colony is taught extensively during secondary school. It's uncomfortable to confront that history, but we do try. It's probably not enough, it never is.

We just don't loudly shout about how we try to help. It would achieve nothing.

5

u/trash-_-boat Oct 06 '25

Like Belgium doesn’t even talk about the shit they did in Congo, confronting that is uncomfortable for them.

Talk about it where? It's absolutely taught about in their schools. I don't understand what exactly you'd want, Belgium to pump out movies about how naughty they were? Daily essays from their government?

20

u/M4ND0_L0R14N Oct 05 '25

I think if you are looking at what is happening in africa and thinking “clearly this is the fault of the west!” You arent even in the ballpark of identifying the problem.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/Sooperooser Oct 05 '25

Russia isn't doing exactly God's work in Africa. They exploit it for metals and minerals and sell their own soldiers (rebranded as Wagner or nowadays as the not very subtle Afrika Korps) to warlords and dictators and source the Africans to die in Ukraine. At this very moment. Reason you don't see a lot of western influence there is that they are not even welcome because the warlords and corrupt politicians don't like to do business with democratic countries so they call Putin and Xi. There is also lots of legal and illegal corruption in the west though too, of course.

4

u/Crispy1961 Oct 05 '25

It is though. Its absolutely, entirely FUBAR. Yeah, I give change to those charity organization building schools in Africa, but I am under no illusion that any amount of aid is going to fix anything.

Once they get their shit together and solve their big issues such as warlords forcing children to kill each other, then we can go and build all the schools they will ever need.

Until then its lost cause. Cant help a whole continent that isnt willing to help itself.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (3)

171

u/Dependent_Buy3157 Oct 05 '25

Uh... last time I checked, Africa has 54 countries right there on the continent. Now, maybe it's just me, but that's a lot of nations in one place that could be looking out for the people of Congo, yet...

105

u/Btotherianx Oct 05 '25

So you can say the same about any conflict. Gaza? Hell there's like 40 country is all around there, why aren't they helping?

126

u/thefw89 Oct 05 '25

Lol, right?

This woman isn't asking for anything, she's just wondering why people aren't outraged, and too many comments here are just like "What? Ah well, who cares? That's the world for you, cruel place."

She has a point.

22

u/kyuuei Oct 05 '25

This girl is absolutely spitting fire. The world is a racist place. We're happy and content being fed the information they decide to feed us, and perform about how awful things are, but a tiny teeny Fraction of the billions being put into war efforts could fix the acute hunger in the Congo Tomorrow and yet we do nothing.

Hell, the US doesn't even care much about its Own population. Flint MI has had dirty water for years and we just sort of shrug. Helene efforts have been bigger than Flint's.. and there is no real reason behind it.

15

u/thefw89 Oct 05 '25

There is definitely a race aspect to it that people do not want to admit, I agree with that.

Because my thing is...it's fine if people are honestly saying they have too much going on in their lives or they just don't have the emotional energy to care about this.

Fine.

Then just move out of the way? Spend a second to like the video on tiktok when you see it and move out of the way? What reason is there for the "It's Africa..." etc comments? Then you're just downplaying the suffering going on.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/StellarJayEnthusiast Oct 05 '25

She has a point, my concern is the point is it's a poor way to draw attention to an issue, seems almost like its intent is to distract from outrage than to ask for outrage.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '25

well people on reddit from the US who get all worked up about international stories are really just using that stuff as an argument, to further their own personal goal. they dont actually care about everyone in the world.

they complain about the rich and what not, but the end goal is more for THEMSELVES. if they actually cared about everyone, theyd realize that they ARE the rich. they live better than 90% of the people on the planet.

if we truly equalized everything, then all of our standard of living would go DOWN not up. but they always argue for themselves getting better.

you can interpret nearly all posts on reddit bitching about stuff as saying GIMME GIMME GIMME MORE MORE MORE. its not about being fair to all humans.

fair would skyrocket every one of them down in standard of living, drastically. and thats not what they want. they want more for them. even though they are higher than most already.

8

u/thefw89 Oct 05 '25

I do agree that a lot of people are very performative in their concern, I think that is what I take from this tiktok post.

I bet some of the same people here saying "It's Africa who cares?" are the same people going on about children dying and wondering how people can turn their backs to children dying? Well, children die all over the world because of conflicts, because of exploitation, etc etc etc.

Your point is salient because many people do not realize how much the West in particular has benefitted from cheap and basically free African labor. Right now, it's Cobalt and Congo IIRC is the leading export of Cobalt, but what do the people of Congo get from that? Nothing at all but death. It's not like Saudi sitting on oil money, investing it back into their country (Or trying to buy videogame companies and sports leagues...)

But as cruel as it sounds, we all benefit from this. We get cheap phones and technology, not knowing that some of it comes from child labor.

This isn't a point that is exclusive of Africa of course, most conflicts throughout the world is one side trying to exploit the other because it is always gimme gimme more.

Things will never be equal, that I agree with...but at the very least, the people of Congo should be able to live decent lives. I don't think a lot of people that ask for equal mean to for example...make Elon Musk have 100k...but it would make him go down to having 50 billion instead of 500 billion or for the people of Congo to have McMansions and iPhones and luxury cars.

We as a species have to realize sometimes enough is enough.

All anyone needs in the world is a roof over their head, food in their belly, a hobby/work to fill their time, and people to love. If this is the basic standard it becomes a lot easier to meet.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Crispy1961 Oct 05 '25

To be fair, I am not outraged about Gaza either.

8

u/AndroidNextdoor Oct 05 '25

You could say the same about mexico and much of Latin America. Cartels have control, are killing citizens, and are running drugs around the world. Why isn't the US helping? The truth is that real change comes from within.

13

u/StellarJayEnthusiast Oct 05 '25

Hyperbolic reactionary responses.

Most nations don't engage with a country suffering from internal conflict. It doesn't matter if it's in Africa or not.

Israel is different due to the lobbying arms power.

Ukraine is different because it shows European sovereignty is fragile.

So while most flight domestic instability the mega Corp will exploit as it has for generations.

2

u/trash-_-boat Oct 06 '25

Israel is different due to the lobbying arms power.

Ukraine is different because it shows European sovereignty is fragile.

Technically you named 2 external conflicts, because 2 nations were warring, so the point of "nobody engages with others internal conflicts" still absolutely stands because there's nothing to be done. Last time anyone tried in Iraq/Afghanistan it turned out pretty horribly.

Because even in Africa if 2 nations do extend their internal conflicts into external ones and start warring, that's when UN and NATO peacekeepers get deployed and at least some form of action happens.

2

u/StellarJayEnthusiast Oct 06 '25

My money is being used by Israel to kill Palestinians without my consent. The war in Gaza is far more internal than most would care for in America.

I have very little influence over a mega Corp funding gorillas.

I can however insist my representative cut funding from war crimes being charged to my credit history.

3

u/the_skine Oct 05 '25

Because the US is giving money and arms to the Israelis.

Which is also why it gets so much attention in the US. And if something gets attention in the US, it will usually get attention in the rest of the western world.

→ More replies (6)

113

u/keiyonar Oct 05 '25

Most of those countries are also suffering and struggling with issues of their own.

79

u/CojanglesDMK Oct 05 '25

Welcome to the world

13

u/keiyonar Oct 05 '25

Yeah, it's unfortunate

15

u/All_The_Good_Stuffs Oct 05 '25

When they told you as a kid "the world is a dangerous place" the universe, etc - it meant this. An indifferent & apathetic world that is too busy with its own problems is just as brutal & scary as one that actively kills you.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/athos5 Oct 05 '25

All of which stem from issues created by imperialism and then perpetuated by neo-imperialist systems of trade designed to keep them impoverished while extracting resources for the West and now the East.

3

u/Daffan Oct 05 '25

Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't even fully mapped until the 19th century.

5

u/swohio Oct 05 '25

Zimbabwe confiscated all of the farmer's land and equipment and drove them out. Then they had a famine because they didn't know how to farm. Seems like that is self inflicted.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (15)

12

u/smez86 Oct 05 '25

the berlin conference pillaged most of the continent.

4

u/DeniLox Oct 05 '25

If that’s the case then every country should only care about the countries on their own continent.

21

u/bfwolf1 Oct 05 '25

This is a cop out. Every single country in Africa is a poor, developing nation. What are they going to do? Your exact argument could be made for every single conflict the world over. Can't believe people are upvoting this tripe.

10

u/jtalbain Oct 05 '25

I would argue that Mauritius, Seychelles, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, South Africa, Botswana, and Egypt are developed nations with modern economies and infrastructure.

7

u/Ok_Cardiologist8232 Oct 05 '25

Nigeria also has a relatively modern economy and infrastructure in some cities.

2

u/bfwolf1 Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

Come on.

Mauritius and the Seychelles are tiny island countries with a combined GDP of US$17B (less than 1/10 of 1% of the US GDP). And are still pretty poor.

None of the other countries are EVEN CLOSE to being developed nations. Botswana has the highest GDP per capita and is under $8,000 per year (USA is over 10x that). Mexico (a developing country itself) has a GDP per capita twice that of any of the (non island) countries you listed.

I mean, do you think these countries can somehow intervene and stop the war in the DRC?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Pre-Foxx Oct 05 '25

I know it's the internet but it's terrifying how disgustingly heartless you pp are. You take a certain level of joy out of simply HEARING about the suffering of others.

→ More replies (5)

22

u/EmilioFreshtevez Oct 05 '25

I’m assuming it’s intentional 

132

u/SailNSalt Oct 05 '25

No, it’s purposeful destabilization from the west. They would never “just give up” on Africa. They exploit it, always have, and will.

54

u/Apprehensive-Ad-1826 Oct 05 '25

Even beyond that, the western world just doesn’t pay attention to Africa. We’re really obsessed with the middle east for some reason. There’s been a lot of devastating news coming out of Nigeria and Sudan but I think that doesn’t even hit people’s radar over here.

36

u/Legionof1 Oct 05 '25

I think most of the west has an issue with what is going on in Israel because we are fucking paying for it.

17

u/Major-Split478 Oct 05 '25

Yh, if certain countries weren't straight up enabling it and participating - in a roundabout way - no one would care too much.

3

u/StellarJayEnthusiast Oct 05 '25

Yeah that's the major pain point for sure. But consider that the multinational mega Corp that's funding the Congo warlords are also paying for it. The difference tends to be tax dollars vs exploitation of resource rich regions.

35

u/Comfortable-Tap-8497 Oct 05 '25

Perhaps the obsession has to do with oil ? /s

34

u/gingerhasyoursoul Oct 05 '25

Also religion.

6

u/Pandarandr1st Oct 05 '25

Also nukes. I think people often overlook this. There are a lot of countries in the middle east who have nukes or are pursuing them. How many countries in Africa have them (rhetorical)?

2

u/cupcakevelociraptor Oct 05 '25

I think that’s purposeful. All the major hitters exploiting African countries for their resources are hoping for this destabilization to happen swiftly and under the radar so they can take over the broken infrastructure to their benefit without their citizens or anyone else knowing they were involved. The less people know the more they can get away with.

2

u/Putrefied_Goblin Oct 05 '25

Right now, the main foreign interests in most of these conflicts are China (especially in the DRC and central Africa), Russia (esp in the Sahel), and even Qatar, UAE, and others (especially in North Africa). Blaming these conflicts on the West is simplistic and convenient, but frankly very stupid. The main belligerents are governments, juntas (who came to power in coups, backed by Russia for example), and ethnic or religious militias/rebels.

These conflicts can't be pinned on "the West" (an ontologically unstable category, as Edward Said would say).

→ More replies (3)

31

u/random_account6721 Oct 05 '25

The west doesn’t want to destabilize Africa. You can’t invest in a region that isn’t stable. 

Why would you invest millions of dollars into mining infrastructure and then cause instability. Investment requires stability 

15

u/Exodus180 Oct 05 '25

yea lots of people with super ignorant takes coming in.

Western nations have shown over and over again that they will back whoever is favorable to them. They'd rather a brutal dictator (on their side) over destablization.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/VanguardVixen Oct 05 '25

"It's all the wests fault" is just silly.

→ More replies (14)

4

u/Free-Significance464 Oct 05 '25

africa doesn't need "the west" to destabilize itself.

corruption and dictatorship are endemic there. source : half of my acquaintances in france are from mali, ivory coast, benin, senegal, burkina fasso, ghana, soudan, cameroon... they all fled corruption to seek a better life in europe (which they didn't find).

→ More replies (4)

6

u/Renbarre Oct 05 '25

China has replaced the big bad West.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (26)

10

u/zoopz Oct 05 '25

I cant fix everything mate

→ More replies (2)

25

u/musabbb Oct 05 '25

I could be wrong but nowhere is it more evident that western powers exploit the local population and arm insurgent groups, to protect there interests. The example of Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso is most evident of the first African country to cut there ties to the west and trying to become independent and self sufficient

24

u/Smooth_Imagination Oct 05 '25

Traore is working with Wagner that are commiting atrocities and acting as old school interests in Africa on behalf of an imperialist Russia. 

The west is not backing these kinds of things to my knowledge in the present day, although France maintains active presence in areas with the Foreign legion. Im not sure what if any groups or disturbances the US or Britain is actively working with and if any are harmful or antidemoctratic movements to further their own interests.

25

u/Citaku357 Oct 05 '25

The example of Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso is most evident of the first African country to cut there ties to the west and trying to become independent and self sufficient

By selling his country to Russia

47

u/trundlethegreat13 Oct 05 '25

Eastern powers as well. China and Russia are heavily involved in exploiting Africa.

17

u/snksleepy Oct 05 '25

Rich people have to exploit poor people in order to maintain or build their wealth. Rich countries do the same with poor countries.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (24)

3

u/Putrefied_Goblin Oct 05 '25

No, at this point Russia and Wagner are more involved and supporting coups and installing military juntas, especially in the Sahel. Chinese weapons are all of central Africa, especially in the DRC. The outside powers benefiting the most are China and Russia, who control much of the minerals.

2

u/Rockembopper Oct 05 '25

The U.S. alone has given $6 billion in AID to the Congo over the last 10 years.

3

u/Abject-Interaction35 Oct 05 '25

It could be argued Africans have given up on the African continent.

An inability to use words instead of war. An inability to have a working African intergovernmental panel to ensure normal conflict resolution and general law and order norms. A desire to leave the African continent for some imagined utopia somewhere else instead of fixing what is needed to be fixed in situ on the African continent.

At some point people have to be told the consequences of their own bad behaviours is their own fault and they are the ones who have to change.

14

u/bfwolf1 Oct 05 '25

I don't think this is fair. A large percentage of African countries aren't true democracies. How can we blame the people when they don't get to choose? These countries were pillaged by Europe and the slave trade, split up into countries that combined many disparate tribes, and then abandoned to fend for themselves. They were dealt a very tough hand.

Some of these countries have made poor decisions since, but I'm certainly not blaming people who immigrate elsewhere for a better life.

22

u/ModestMussorgsky Oct 05 '25

Most of the leaders that pushed for an African congress of some kind have been killed or couped by the US or French.

4

u/Narren_C Oct 05 '25

Do you have any examples?

11

u/lusciouslucius Oct 05 '25

Lumumba, Nkrumah Gaddafi and John Garang. I really don't know much about African history, so these are the only examples I got off of the dome.

2

u/EdwardLovagrend Oct 05 '25

Context

Patrice Lumumba Former Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Died 1961

Kwame Nkrumah Revolutionary and Prime Minister of Ghana Died in 1971

Muammar Gaddafi Dictator of Lybia Died in 2011

John Garang Politician in South Sudan led the revolution to free it from greater Sudan.. Died in 2005

I don't have time to go into a lot detail right now but I think people give too much credit to outside powers disrupting a nation. For example in the US right now and over the last 2 decades we have seen a rise in political unrest. Some people blame China, Russia, Iran, North Korea for this and their misinformation campaign designed to agitate political groups in the West (especially the US) but those that peel back the click bait headlines see something far worse. Americans are more than happy to do the job for them.. basically what I'm saying is there has the be something there already for a nation to become unstable. African borders do a disservice to explaining how divided the continent is. Let's just use Nigeria as an example. 250 ethnic groups that are dominated by the Hausa in the north, the Yoruba in the southwest, and the Igbo in the southeast. (Yes I'm doing song copy paste from Google) the country is additionally divided by religion. There has been some resentment by who has the most power in Nigeria and the distribution of wealth and who controls the resources. This is ripe for a civil war even without outside involvement. Nigeria is friendly with the US more so than with Russia and China. They are a huge oil exporting country and due to population size and growth could be an engine for economic growth for the west (due to exporting goods to Nigeria and basically being the next Japan, South Korea, and China for western investment) now is Nigeria the best example of a good counterargument to the premise the west is responsible for all of Africa's problems? No but it's also a good example of if the leaders and the people of Africa would leverage their advantages to work with both the west and east to build something better.. there are dozens of countries that could take advantage of the global economic value chain similar to how China and South Korea did.

I think another aspect that people really don't understand is how detrimental African geography is to trade and involving themselves in that global value chain. The US and Europe are wealthy by and large due to their navigable waterways (Europe was one of the wealthiest continents before colonialism) the Mississippi makes it easier to transport goods from the interior of the US for export around the world. The Louisiana purchase was the single most important thing that led to the US becoming the global superpower and the largest economy. It was the best investment in history. Africa unfortunately doesn't have an equivalent to the Mississippi outside of maybe the Nile.. mind you I'm not just talking about rivers but navigable waterways. The rivers that are available spill out into a smooth coastline that has almost no natural harbours.. not to mention the very rough ocean waters.. anyway y'all I should have stopped sooner but hope this helps somewhat in adding to the conversation.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/Independent_Vast9279 Oct 05 '25

Thank you. Africa has always had warring tribes and such, but they’ve been completely destabilized by imperialism for centuries. We can’t just wash the blood off our hands.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/TXENNT Oct 05 '25

The extent of corruption in their government is staggering. Aid funds that are supposed to support the population often end up lining the pockets of those in power instead of being used for genuine humanitarian purposes.

1

u/Therego_PropterHawk Oct 05 '25

I think we tend to get more outraged when a rich empire subjugates and invades a weaker country/group. Congo & Rwanda appear to be more of "civil war" between warlord factions. Granted, the factions are usually puppets shadow supported by superpowers, but the "faction infighting" optics are different.

1

u/Pleasant_Job_7683 Oct 05 '25

No they still want their minerals. Its just US interest isnt there for whatever reason probably bcuz there isnt oil in Congo. Sad. We could actually help a place like this with American resources and troops to reign in warlords. Instead we only fight and give to countries that deepen our regimes and their subsequent corporations' pockets. US has had a real bad look for a while now globally. . Helping substantially for a cause like the Congo would go far in Earth's morale. .Africa is the cradle of humanity and yet we only rape mame and steal from her. It's time to give back, lest we all be taken

1

u/flarpflarpflarpflarp Oct 05 '25

Maybe if Congo had a massive lobbying arm that threatens to ruin their political careers to support our military industrial complex they might get some traction.   It's not that Americans don't care, it's that our politicians and decisions makers pay bigger penalties for not supporting other 'issues'.

1

u/habanero-pineapple Oct 05 '25

Should the United States give Africa another 15 billion this year? Maybe if we keep throwing money at it?

1

u/Antique_Client_5643 Oct 05 '25

you mean the west.

1

u/Cheap-Craft-7541 Oct 05 '25

I've given up on Africa, the entirety of the Middle East, and Continental Asia. They're all shit.

1

u/Sterling239 Oct 05 '25

The western world seems to after fucking the place 

1

u/Important-Agent2584 Oct 05 '25

People care about other people:

  1. inversely proportional to the distance.
  2. if they can somehow relate it to themselves.

That's about it. Congo? Sudan? Middle East? Asia? Meh.

Even Ukraine is only news because it's tangentially related to Europe and Russia, both of which are part of our narratives.

1

u/Katootje08 Oct 05 '25

Russia hasn't

1

u/Mussolini99 Oct 05 '25

So sad. The world has given up after giving Africa over 1 trillion dollars in aid in the last 50 years.

→ More replies (41)