Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (75116)	2/24/2000 8:07:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

It seems to me there would be many wars in Africa regardless of colonialism, as the various tribes tried to build larger territories at the expense of other tribes. That is the normal human lot.....Modernization is always slowest to affect the countryside, and concentrated in the "urban enclaves", so I don't really see your point....Hindus and Muslims were already "lumped together" in the pre-existing principalities, where it was not unusual to have a Muslim ruler over mainly Hindu subjects and vice- versa....I find it amusing that, on the one hand, you assert that the British could not have ruled without the locals (and mostly were indifferent, because preoccupied with diddling), but that they were responsible for keeping the locals in power. It seems likely that the locals would have maintained power anyway, and the Raj is reputed to have cleaned things up some....I have read some on both sides, although it is not my "thing", as it is yours, and this is the impression I walked away with.....