The point stands as quality of life was far higher under colonialism than post-colonialism.
Africans have proven to incapable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or developing their own countries, despite being given every possible advantage.
They don’t have the right to invade Europe and Europeans owe them nothing.
Every possible advantage my ass. When you draw lines on a map forcing people who hate each other to live together endless civil and tribal wars is the result just as we’ve seen all over Africa and the ME since the end of WWII.
Whether you accept it or not Europe created the problem which was totally predictable and avoidable and now you’re paying the price.
Unless and until the EU breaks up, you’re going to be overrun.
Arab slave trade were trading Europeans and taking whole coastal cities in England does that justify what Tony Blair and George Bush done to Iraq??
Poland never colonized anyone so should they have no African migrants??
And what about white on white slavery the Vikings enslave the Irish do the Irish get to go to Sweden now and live of thier taxpayer???
Pre importing food to the rest of Africa vs hyperinflation and starvation
They would have been better off still being called Rhodesia
The good old noble savage myth Africans and Arabs just like all other people throughout all of history have had war amongst themselves they are not more peaceful than Europeans by nature.
Also we do not want them here and the problems they find themselves in now are not our problems even if you could prove Europeans cause the problems the modern-day European still do not want to live with them there is a change in the modern attitude whites are becoming more and more aware of their racial identity
Slavery is a side issue.
As long as Europe Remains under EU control the entire continent is going to pay the price.
I said nothing at all about the “noble savage”.
You might want to slow down and read my posts before responding to them.
Whether you want them or not the EU gov’t is going to pour them into your countries.
You did implied it
Many people seem to misunderstand what you’re saying that’s two people in this one topic maybe it’s you that’s causing the problem and needs to be more clear
I couldn’t be more clear if you read what I actually write instead of substituting what you want to see or what you imagine.
None of the words I’m using are difficult nor is their phrasing.
Put the bias aside and read my words.
The Romanians lived under the ottoman empire are they allowed to declare war on Turkey??? And make them live under Romanian laws??
Who other than Turkey is going to stop them if they do?
Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire so the analogy fails.
If European countries change their name they would not have to worry about the mess they left behind in Africa and the middle East??? by your logic not mine
Would it be fair for Irish people to live off the Swedish taxpayers as compensation for the Vikings enslaving their ancestors or has Sweden achieved a loophole because they now have a new name??
I’m not trying to start an argument I’m just trying to understand your point of view more clearly
No, you’re still not reading what I wrote.
Two separate issues.
One, Europeans created the problems that we have today in Africa in the ME with colonization and then abandoning those colonies.
Two, names are irrelevant and it isn’t about what’s right or wrong.
As long as you live under EU gov’t that gov’t will keep flooding the EU countries with refugees and asylum seekers and will do little or nothing to stop the endless flood of illegals.
Those governing over your countries from the EU don’t give a damn what problems any of the member nations have as a result of their rule.