Anti-colonialism a scam?

Supposedly the Portuguese were surprised their African subjects rebelled so strongly against them because they had gotten along for centuries. Do we known for sure that all colonial uprising were the popular will of the people? Could some of them been the result of external communist agitators working with internal political thugs?

>Three types of forced labor were imposed in Angola [in the late 19th-early 20th centuries]. The most severe was a form of modern slavery in which workers were shipped to São Tomé or Principe for five years of hard labor on coffee and cocoa plantations, from which few returned. The second type of forced labor put people to work for major government and business enterprises throughout Angola. The colonial government contracted with major employers to provide required numbers of workers in exchange for substantial administrative fees paid by employers for this service. The third type of forced labor involved local service by men, women, and children on public works such as highway construction and maintenance, cultivation of gardens, building of houses, and other tasks determined by the local administrator. While exact numbers are impossible to determine, one estimate suggested that as late as 1954, almost 380,000 workers were subjected to forced labor. Despite some reforms in the 1940s and 1950s, forced labor was not abolished until 1962. The compulsory labor system played a great part in uniting Africans against Portuguese rule during the early liberation struggles.

>In 1928 the annual tax for an African male in central Angola was the equivalent of 100 days pay for a contract laborer. By 1945 the tax had increased by 50 per cent. Many fled to neighboring countries rather than pay the tax. Those who could neither pay the tax nor flee were the most likely to be subjected to contract labor.

>The coffee plantations enjoyed great economic success for their primarily settler owners, until disruption of most of Angola’s agriculture during the civil war. Tens of thousands of Africans were displaced by European producers in townships across the coffee-producing areas. While coffee production brought great prosperity to the Portuguese and large profits to foreign investors, for Africans it created only great resentment directed against the government.

>In addition, many Africans were forced from their subsistence lands to work on cotton plantations. In some areas African families were forced to grow cotton for no wages on prescribed plots of land. Their harvests were sold at below-market prices in order to subsidize the floundering urban-based textile industry. When plots ceased being productive, the African workers were forced to move to new ones, often great distances from their homes.

>In central Angola, the development of corn and sisal as export crops likewise forced many subsistence farmers into wage labor. Corn exports expanded from zero in 1919 to 100,000 metric tons in 1950. Corn production, which took place on small family plots, greatly impoverished the region’s already poor soils.

>Production of crops such as coffee, corn, cotton, and sisal for export greatly diminished the land and labor available for subsistence activities. The minimal wages gained through contract labor could in no measure make up for the loss of subsistence production and goods. In addition the loss of community members to contract labor contributed to the deterioration of village life and the breakdown of kinship groups.

None of this sounds particularly horrendous or unique. Not just in Africa but the whole world.

What the fuck does being 'unique' have to do with anything? OP said they had gotten along for centuries, which is utter bullshit, so I showed him why.

It's okay. Some people are born idiots. There are government services available for people as stupid as you.

It was very very shitty. What do you not get about that?

Seems like typical stuff that goes down anywhere. A few people worked harsh conditions and died. 380,000 isn't even that many. By some estimates Mauritania's currently enslaved population is 600,000. Muh taxes too damn high is a another basic complaint. Finally Wage cuckery and the transfer of labor are inevitable aspects of a modern economy.

Were these things bad enough to justify a violent communist revolution backed by international players? Was the subsequent Angolan civil war worth it? Are conditions better off in post-independence Angola for the people?

So you're saying that all this stuff is no big deal but HOLY SHIT A VIOLENT REVOLUTION, that's extreme? Why?

I'm not saying the revolution was outlandish. Was it wise though? Did the people want it, or did they get caught up in communist-liberal propaganda and the anti-colonial zeitgeist around them?

> Did the people want it, or did they get caught up in communist-liberal propaganda and the anti-colonial zeitgeist around them?

What's the difference? Regardless of whether or not they were influence by propaganda, would they have had any choice in the matter?

If they got caught up in communist-liberal propaganda, was it not the fault of the colonial authorities for not being able to censor it in the first place?

Pro tip. People in the past did not foresee the future or benefit from your glorious hindsight, they could only react to the brutal present and reflect on the shit past.

>What's the difference? Regardless of whether or not they were influence by propaganda, would they have had any choice in the matter.
The difference could be as benign as easing tensions between Angolans and Portuguese. Either way it's worthwhile knowing different interpretations of the event.

>If they got caught up in communist-liberal propaganda, was it not the fault of the colonial authorities for not being able to censor it in the first place?
No

>People in the past did not foresee the future or benefit from your glorious hindsight, they could only react to the brutal present and reflect on the shit past.
obviously. Why didn't cooler heads prevail on the Angolan side? If it caught the Portuguese by surprise it must have been surprising to some native angolians as well.

>380,000 isn't even that many.
I disagree, that's a lot of people

> The difference could be as benign as easing tensions between Angolans and Portuguese.
The question remains, "would they have had any choice in the matter?"

> No
So isn't it natural that Angolans are going to be influenced by Soviet propaganda? If a colonial administration does not address leftist propaganda, then subversion is the natural consequence.

The answer to the death of Pluracontinentalism is simple: "All is within the flow of causality."

>would they have had any choice in the matter?"
I choose to not be influenced by various forms of propaganda. They could have if they had a will.

>being a literal slave isnt thaaaat bad
what would you consider horrendous then

Forced labor goes on today. I don't see many people chimping out about it.

For Africa back then it is.

>By some estimates Mauritania's currently enslaved population is 600,000.

meme stat (leaves it the histroy of Mauritania). There's 600k who are in a state of pseudo indetured labour or slavery. Aka the guy is free but he has no other job to go to so he works for his former master or ancestors because the choices are starve or work in psuedo-slave conditons (not chattel but bound labour, not free the boss provides for them). So the 600k is not what it seems.

I mean how 380k was a lot back then.

are you retarded people protest shitty work conditions all the time on top of the countless slave rebellions that occurred in history.

Are being stupid on purpose because this is the internet or what? Just because youre too ignorant doesnt mean people arent upset about forced labor. Slavery in modern Africa is a huge problem although most of it is sex trafficking and there are more than enough people very upset about. Just because it goes on today does not make it okay. Just because people get raped and murdered today does not mean that it wasnt awful when it happened in the past. I shouldnt bother arguing with someone as dense as you but you got me to reply so i guess you win that much

It was not chattel slavery but forced labor. Not even a large percent of people at that. Funny how no one mentions the benefits Angolans received.

>Its not slavery you just get sent to prison island where you get killed if you dont work yourself to death
thats just semantics. no matter what you call it, its slavery. I'm not saying that the Angolans werent better off under the Portuguese rule than they are now but to write off forced labor like that is just ridiculous.

>Funny how no one mentions the benefits Angolans received.

Those benefits were of the "if you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows" kind of thing.

Forced labor is still a fucked up thing and many many Angolans died and suffered to it.

Many reforms had to be fucking wringed out of Portugal through threats of insurrection.

>One of Portugal’s first reactions to the anti-colonialist movement
was to pass a degree in 1955 regulating the use of compulsory labour
for public works; it inflicted heavier penalties on the use of compulsory
labour for private purposes, a practice abolished by law in 1928.

27 fucking years to actually clamp down on a practice that was illegal and it wasn't even that effective because it STILL WAS USED by both private and public entities.

>In reality, in 1958 120,000 Africans were still conscripted in Angola, and 95,000 of
them were working for private employers. In 1956, 500,000 Africans
of Mozambique were forced to work on the cotton farms;I each
received an average of $1 1.17 as payment for a year’s work for himself
and his family

>Africans not called upon to do forced labour were discriminated against by being paid considerably lower wages for their work than whites.
>Portugal was sufficiently impressed by the armed revolt in Angola
in 1962 to abolish all forms of forced labour

So doing the same job you still got less and now 34 years later it got abolished.

>muh inequality

People still buy this spook?

When the inequality exists purely because of spooks like property and hierarchy, yes.

Inequality is natural because people aren't equal.

not an argument.

How does this have to deal with inequality? Go fuck yourself with your fraudulent dodging the point.

How can you use "naturalness" as an argument after posting Stirner?

That doesn't mean that all inequality is natural and based on the unique's inequality. Much of it is due to spooks.

Because it exist.

Oh you're right man. You should have been there to hand out your own retarded interpretation of Stirner to hand out to all those Angolans wanting to rid themselves of colonial masters.

I'm sure they would have definitely seen that they were meant to be ruled by others. Fantastic stuff, mate.

>Stiner being co-opted by the post-modern right.

Really makes me proud.

>its only a spook when its a spook ive been spooked to disagree with

>EQUALITY IS DEFINITELY A SPOOK I MEAN SOME WERE BORN MORE SUPERIOR THAN OTHERS

>NO NATIONALISM IS NOT A SPOOK

Nationalism = spook
Equality = spook
Inequality = not spook.

The very fact that you capitalised the "I" in inequality makes it ironic. Although it's obviously because it's a sentence starter, but still.

>Inequality = not spook.

The premises for most forms of inequality are most definitely not things of substance. It's not like we're talking about emergent leadership based on capability, or basic despotism based on might. We're talking about a complex web of constructs meant to maintain a notion of legitimacy. Encouraging people to band together to buck off colonial rule is absolutely not out of line for Stirner's thinking.

Only on Veeky Forums would someone ask something as stupid as this.

even for this board this thread is retarded.

t. Jonas Malheiro Savimbi

Is Angola a real identity?

In India at least though there had been uprisings without communist influence the final push for freedom had a lot of involvement of the communist party of India.

As a matter of fact because of the communist influence in India's freedom struggle and Russia's advances in Asia Britain created Pakistan. The Muslim league was not allied with communists (despite a lot of Muslims being communists) and agreed to let Britain and US put a military base on their land, something the Indian Congress party did not agree to. This also led to the biggest migration ever and 3 million deaths.

>communist influence

if it wasn't commies it would be some others sympathetic to their independence or hell some other European nation/America

>implying that they didn't think the future would be just as if not even more shit, for themselves and their descendents, if they continued letting people who baselessly looked down on them and treated them like crap; rule over them

I don't disagree. Hell, there was even Briton influence in the struggle. But the fact remains that there was communist influence. I wish there wasn't and the partition didn't happen.

>Implying other Angolans treat them better

What point are you trying to get at?

There was American influence as well and that to was just as regrettable. It's just cold War shit.

It's the racial/colonial double standard.

Kinda similar to what this anonymous review said in regards to Uncle Tom.

>Uncle Tom's character is sketched with great power and rare religious perception. It triumphantly exemplifies the nature, tendency, and results of Christian non-resistance. We are curious to know whether Mrs. Stowe is a believer in the duty of non-resistance for the White man, under all possible outrage and peril, as for the Black man… [For whites in parallel circumstances, it is often said] Talk not of overcoming evil with good—it is madness! Talk not of peacefully submitting to chains and stripes—it is base servility! Talk not of servants being obedient to their masters—let the blood of tyrants flow! How is this to be explained or reconciled? Is there one law of submission and non-resistance for the Black man, and another of rebellion and conflict for the white man? When it is the whites who are trodden in the dust, does Christ justify them in taking up arms to vindicate their rights? And when it is the blacks who are thus treated, does Christ require them to be patient, harmless, long-suffering, and forgiving? Are there two Christs?

This user reviewer knew nothing about Christian history.

He's still got a point.

Where? 3rd sentence downward is just a display of ignorance in the history of early Christianity.

It's not a 1:1 thing.

>Talk not of servants being obedient to their masters—let the blood of tyrants flow! How is this to be explained or reconciled? Is there one law of submission and non-resistance for the Black man, and another of rebellion and conflict for the white man? When it is the whites who are trodden in the dust, does Christ justify them in taking up arms to vindicate their rights? And when it is the blacks who are thus treated, does Christ require them to be patient, harmless, long-suffering, and forgiving? Are there two Christs?

Replace Christ with justice,dignity whatever. Why should Angolans have to take shit from the Portuguese and just be docile passive fools? Are they supposed OT wait for salvation? Should a battered spouse leave or stay and hope/gamble that the abusive spouse stops overtime with the risk of them going too far and doing irreversible damage/death

>Blacks murder and steal from each other from time immemorial
>White warriors heroically conquer the land they live on
>establish by all means reasonable system
>Blacks fed lies by international communism
>MUH INDEPENDENCE
>Civil war, rampant corruption and irrelevances follows. quality of life lowered significantly. By all means worse off.

Now I see where yo re trying to take this memester.

>Do we known for sure that all colonial uprising were the popular will of the people?

At the end of WWII the Japanese, hoping to retain some of their influence, convinced the Indonesians to declare their independence from the Dutch as they had no way of suppressing it. The Dutch had to get the British to land a division to reinstall them to power, with both sides taking heavy losses doing so.

Similarly, the French actually asked the Japanese to help them in Vietnam until they could gather strength to go back in themselves.

Looking back it seems pretty delusional that any European power still maintained hope of restoring their colonial empires, but then again the US thought we could turn China into a Western Democracy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯