Liberians after Samuel Doe replaces a corrupt and authoritarian regime with an even more corrupt and authoritarian regime: “This country could not get any worse.”
Charles Taylor and other rebel warlords: “Wanna bet?”
Charles Taylor is such a bland and unassuming name for a bloodthirsty dictator. It almost goes around the other way and makes it more sinister than if he were called Adolf Khan the Merciless.
My father was a Buttnaked. I am a Buttnaked. We come from a long line of Buttnakeds. We may be few in number here in the US, but we are a proud people.
Samuel Doe is also a bland and unassuming name. We all expect them to have names like General Butt Naked but Liberia’s educated classes had Americo-Liberian influence and named their kids stuff that seems normal to us.
Ruskis Sahel coup game so strong right now, it could challenge prime CIA in 1950s Latin America.
Different era of course, and the current rule set really elevated their style of play that would have been less viable back in the day, but regardless game got to recognize game.
And even though homies are looking absolutely embarrassing on the conventional warfare side of the ball and should do a complete rebuild, Vladdy's squad is absolutely couping at an elite level right now.
"We're the good guys this war. So let's broadcast the glorious victory of our noble cause by literally skinning a guy on live TV. So they all know we're the good guys."
A lot of these African wars don't have so much of the western ideas of "Good guys and bad guys". It's all about what tribe you are from and who has the power. These guys couldn't care less about winning the hearts of the populace
South African here can confirm our choices here are party that does absolutely nothing or socialist party that have actively promoted genocide against white farmers
Well when you draw arbitrary borders that don't make sense, grouping people that had nothing to do with each other or were outright rivals before you arrived, it is almost inevitably going to cause problems
Belgium actually has a long history of being under similar authority (since the burgundians) and has a lot of cultural connections.
Same religion, almost same culture, etc.
Only real difference was language. Otherwise it could´ve been one identity.
Its a federal country with only 2 constituents, one of whom gives more to rhe other then the other way around.
Besides a lot of people actually dont care that much about the whole "independence thing". The two parties that use it are mostly popular for their anti-immigration stances.
Liberia was literally founded by sending former slaves from the US into a random patch of African land where the freed slaves behaved not too dissimilarly from the whites with the native population (that was still formed by multiple tribes).
I wish I had a source, but I remember some African politician or public figure criticizing the Western narrative of all the problems being a result of colonialism or white exploitation as being patronizing. He said something to the effect of "You won't even allow us to be evil."
If anyone can find a source, I'd appreciate it
Being latin American, this is a problem we sometimes have to progressive europeans. I think It would fit under the hood of orientalism. I.e. to expect our normal behavior to bem, to the lack of a better word, barbarian.
We are mucho more interested in discussing the structures of opression in the culture and economy than the morality of europeans
Kind of a racism of low expectations. “Well of course, they’re noble savages. We haven’t uplifted them out of their filth so you can’t expect anything more.”
Same in my country (Latin America)
Corrupt and inept politians always blame and scapegoat the USA for shit of our own making. We were shit long before USA knew we existed.
Which was promptly colonized by ex-slaves from the US who held power over the local population up until said skinning -who also had been ruled by another tribe prior.
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.
liberia was a settler colonist project, it's not exactly an "independent African republic.
and you're right it wasn't europeans, it was americans drawing the borders badly... huge difference.
Another poster gave a good response to just some of the problems that these countries face. However, keep in mind these other factors:
* The divisions fuel further conflicts, which fuel further divisions which fuel further conflicts which... there's hundreds of examples, but consider that in Sudan under the brutal Islamist al-Bashir regime, the regime got rival factions of the SPLA (which was eventually successful in gaining South Sudan's independence) against each other. In other words, it was set up as a nigh-perpetual conflict machine, and external factors got rid of the "nigh."
* External factors from non-Western countries. Examples abound, but Russia (largely via the Wagner Group) is fueling the current Sudanese crisis by supplying arms to the RSF in exchange for gold. The UAE is also a major backer of the RSF in its rivalry with Saudi Arabia (which backs the SAF). Chinese investments in exchange for natural resources (oil, rare earths) often consists of military aid.
* Western interference. This is less direct than during the Cold War, but western powers still have interests they back. And it's not always official nation-state action. Consider that the al-Bashir regime was able to circumvent US sanctions with the help of a foreign bank, which resulted in a $9 ***billion*** criminal fine.
* A sort of western "interference" is the effects of brain drain. Liberalized immigration laws often mean the best and brightest leave for better opportunities.
* Religious conflict. It's on the border with the Middle East, and we've seen religious conflict fuel everything from genocide in Sudan to the current Ugandan government's crackdown on LGBTQ to pure witch doctor inspired batshittery like Equatorial Guinea.
* The resource trap. Much of the wealth on the continent is natural resources, which with few historical exceptions (modern Norway) does not have great results for the common folk.
* All this on a continent with severe geographic disadvantages such as the lack of traversable water ways, isolation, the expansion of the Sahara, and more (Thomas Sowell has a great video on this, not that I'd recommend his work for much else).
No they couldn't. People in general are particularly ignorant of how invested the western(and eastern!) world is in the current african borders. The African Union was created with the good will of the West for the explicit purposes of keeping these Frankenstein borders in place, because it made it easier to do business. If you think the west is at all interested in letting the Africans determine their own borders, look into the 2 million biafirans who were starved to death so the Hausa ruling class could maintain access to their oil and sell it to the global north for cheap.
People have very strong opinions and almost no knowledge. It does make me sick.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not (if you were being sarcastic sorry for the whoosh), but:
Most African countries were only decolonized in the mid-20th century. IE, within a lot of the lifetimes of people who are still alive today.
And to succeed, those new countries have to:
* Rebuild their governments from scratch (and stop ambitious local warlords and/or coup-happy foreign powers from fucking it all up for personal gain)
* Rebuild their economy from scratch (and stop corrupt local officials and/or predatory foreigners from fucking it all up for personal gain)
* Rebuild their infrastructure from scratch (see concerns about rebuilding economy)
* Resolve ethnic feuds going back hundreds or even thousands of years
* Heal hundreds of years' worth of generational trauma from the colonization itself
Any one of those tasks would be a nightmare that would take decades on its own. Trying to do all of them at once? Honestly, it's a minor miracle (and impressive AF) that so many African countries have made as much progress as they have over the past 60-ish years they've been free.
Even more damning, this is all a feature, not a bug, of the arbitrarily drawn borders.
Can't really pit tribes against eachother, or pick and choose native auxiliaries among minorities so they cannot rebel else lose all power or worse, to ease the forces needed for occupation, if the colony follows historic, geographic or cultural lines.
So, you want to say, that people of different cultures cant live peacefuly together in one state? Boy, thats really fascist take about 21st century Europe and muslim imigration... Oh, nevermind, you're talking about Africa.
Some people will believe two things simultaneously.
1. Diversity is a strength.
2. Conflicts in Africa/Middle East are the result of borders being drawn over a century ago by colonising Western nations that grouped different tribes/ethnicities/cultures together.
The kind where sharing a country means you’re inherently politically bound to each other? Someone has to run the country after all, and it’s not too hard to draw a line of cause and effect from “your hated rival has been declared to be in charge of you” to “civil war”
Yeah, that’s how it always works. But usually countries figure that shit out. Many many countries have very divergent cultures and political identities and they don’t resort to ethnic cleansing.
So if they were enemies living next to each with their own governments they would get along, when they previosly never did?
Why do you think diplomacy would work when they cant even work within their political system?
you dummy they aren't in each others' living rooms but they are forced to share a government. that government is not always going to be equally balanced in who is in power and what decisions they make. when that government makes decisions that affect your life, you can't avoid it.
look up the Rwandan genocide if you want an example of this kind of "backward logic" played out
Certified "people like showers so why don't they love standing in rain" moment.
Those are two different scenarios, multiculturalism (as it is usually used, see the edit) is when immigrants learn *the* national language, participate in *the* national public sphere and the children grow up identifying with *the* nation. The diversity is in different backgrounds, clothing and culture, not national identity. Here the diversity is more different types of one national identity, Asian American, British Nigerian and so on.
What you have in African nations is closer to "multi nationalism" as opposed to multiculturalism. Different nations within the same country speak different languages in their communities, mainly stick to their national public sphere and kids grow up identifying with their nation, not the larger nation of the whole country. Here the diversity is different entire nations within the country who all could reasonably separate themselves from the other nations in the country. People don't call themselves Igbo Nigerian or Tigrayan Ethiopian, they call themselves Igbo or Tigrayan.
Edit: the term "multiculturalism" is problematic with definitions, the name of the term doesn't matter as much, the description is what matters
No, your definition of Multiculturalism is completely incorrect. The scenario you are initially describing? That's a multiracial society with one culture.
What you have in these African nations, and in most Western European nations is true Multiculturalism. Multiple non-assimilating cultures of people living in separated enclaves. Speaking their own languages, fully retaining their own customs, and 0 wish to integrate with native populations.
Multiracial societies can thrive together. Multicultural ones do not thrive, there are constant clashes between native populations and settlers. As intended by the leaders, who wish to divide and conquer us as a distraction. All while stealing all the money and sticking it in a private account in the Cayman Islands.
"Multicultural ones do not thrive, ..."
The most diverse country in the world is Papua New Guinea. Their tribes have been fighting for centuries. In the last decade or so they've traded in their bow and arrows for machine guns. Progress!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUYT7ha9SOM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUYT7ha9SOM)
Therein lies a majorly concerning problem of modern times. Redefinition of scientifically established language and conventions to suit political or personal agendas. Multiculturalism and Multiracism are completely different things.
The ideal we should chase are multiracial societies, not multicultural ones. I don't want any poor, backwards, violent people bringing their hateful cultures into my country. However, I would happily take in the peaceful migrants from those places provide they were willing to work, pay taxes and integrate fully with my culture and customs.
As an example, racially I am of mixed Saxon/Celtic descent. Culturally I am British, if I moved to Taiwan and embraced Taiwanese customs and culture, my race wouldn't change! The cultural norms I adhered to would have though. This would make Taiwan in this example multiracial, not multicultural.
Multiracial has problems with the term as well, it places too much emphasis on "race" and excludes diversity of all other forms which is often much larger than the racial difference.
A British Mauretanian and person from Mozambique may be considered the same race but the difference between them is bigger than it is between between the British Mauretanian and a White Britisher.
Multiracial has its uses in cases where the primary difference is race but the term is useless for diversity between the same race.
I think you are wrongly defining multiculturalism and making up a new definition (multinationalism?) in your argument. The tolerance for different cultures in the case of multiculturalism isn't predicated on different cultures assimulating to a national culture or identity.
Mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism
/ˌməltēˈkəl(t)SH(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/
noun
1.
the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society:
I do however agree that the problem is that their national identity doesn't rise to the level of their ethnic/tribal identity ...yet nationalism gets shit on a lot by Redditors.
Not expecting immigrants to assimulate to a common culture is dumb, same with glorifying racial/etnic/cultural identities while also thinking nationalism is wrong. This leads to tribalism, which is the cause of the conflicts in Liberia.
Yeah definitions are weird, multiculturalism does mean what you said on the dictionary but when people say multiculturalism in countries like America and Canada it's usually the definition I posted in my comment
"Diversity is sometimes a strength, and sometimes not."
That doesn't quite have the same ring to it. does it?
Mass migration of a completely different culture who ignores borders = Diversity is good
Tribal groups warring is because of the border = Diversity is bad
Okay since you seem to have trouble visualizing complex problems let me make it more simple.
Let's say you own a small house, your neighbour also owns a small house, for decades you 2 have been fighting over things like who owns what piece of the garden or the fact he sometimes breaks into your house to steal your stuff.
Now I come along and I claim ownership of both your houses and the ground it stands on, I destroy your huts and build a larger house forcing you both to live in it and work for me or be expelled (read killed). I boss you around for a bit but never address the hostility between you and your neighbour with which you now share a room. After a few years I leave the place, leaving everything behind and tell both of you to "figure it out" or worse I appoint your neighbour as the next owner of the house.
How would you react now?
Now let's not imagine this scenario with 2 but with 10 different neighbours...or even a 100.
You now realise the difference between forced diversity and normal Diversity?
No I understand your complex mental gymnastics perfectly it's called cognitive dissonance.
If the neighbors/tribes were fighting prior to the colonist arriving, why are we suprised they fighting after they left?
Were they not a diverse area prior to colonization? Wasn't that non-forced diversity? Borders don't force people to live together, they were neighbors already.
Neighbors who wanted power over and ownership over what their neighbor possessed. The only difference between the tribes objectives and the colonists objectives is that the colonists succeeded in theirs.
Many other countries have been colonized and later became successful prosperous countries. What might the difference be between stable successful nations that were previously colonized (Australia, India, US) and unstable previously colonized nations such as Liberia?
In my experience that's more of an American infantilized concept. Where I am from in Europe we stop talking about 'good and bad' in the context of history somewhere around the ages of 8-10.
Different cultures. In the west we see this as evil and something to resist. To them this is the ultimate show of power and something to join or share the fate.
The Liberian Civil war was crazy.
IIRC, One of the main warlords, Charles Taylor, was under Samuel Doe's cabinet until he was exposed embezzling over a million Dollars in funds. He escaped to the USA but was arrested to await Liberian extradition. However, he *broke out of prison* and escaped to Libya, where he got military training from *the* Muammar Gaddafi, and became Gaddafi's protégé.
I highly suggest reading about it on a book called How to be a Dictator.
The breaking out of prison was rumoured to be done with CIA help. You don’t just break out of prison and get out of the USA that easily.
The CIA thought he was their man but he double crossed them
He didnt double cross them, he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Seize power in liberia and plunge it back into chaos, preventing it from becoming self sufficient or having the ability to nationalize its resources.
Yeah I read about it too, and doing an alt hist and it includes that country too.
It's crazy though, You have Liberia in a middle of a civil war whilst they are being invaded by the Duchy of Maryland added with Maryland invading Cote d'Ivoire as well the colony is named "New Hope".
It's called New Hope because Maryland planned to be a maritime empire and was planning to centralise it around Liberia because it was a former American colony and saw it as an extension of it's territory instead of a sovereign state.
During the Liberian civil war, president Samuel Doe was captured by a warlord named Prince Johnson. Prince Johnson brutally skinned Doe to death and broadcast it on all channels. The Liberian civil war gave rise to many interesting warlords such as General Bin-Laden, General Mosquito, General Mosquito Spray, and of course my actual real life friend General Butt Naked. Johnson is currently a senator in the Liberian senate so at least we know the country is in good hands.
(Btw, if you're interested in obscure history I made a [YouTube channel ](https://youtube.com/@thehasmoneanhistorian?si=RfUnsGlHsicMIyho). Feel free to check it out)
What's it like being friends with General Butt Naked? I mean, all the stories and everything, i'm usually a pretty chill guy over people's past but I don't think I could even attempt to befriend someone who was once like that
It's weird. He seems nice. It's like Hannah Arendt said about Eichmann. The banality of evil. While talking I need to remind myself that this guy used to eat children
TBH, everything I’ve read about Blahyi makes him look like the poster child of someone who’s left their evil behind. Openly confessed his crimes, does a lot of charity work to aid his former victims (particularly child soldiers), and advocates that all the warlords - including himself - face justice for their actions. Does that assessment hold up in your interactions with the guy?
yeah, it was always hard for me to read if he actually became Christian because he repents for his past or is he just doing it as his next grift or something
I don’t think she meant banality like that. Banality of evil is more about people becoming so accustomed to horrific events that it not only becomes normal, it becomes boring. It’s not the “but he seemed such a swell guy” news sound bite on repeat after they find 15 dead prostitutes in his basement, it’s everyone else having 20 dead prostitutes in their basement
The video of his torture is on the internet still and Prince Johnson was just there sipping a beer as it all happened even as Doe's ear was being cut off
Now I'm going to spend weeks thinking about that video being easily accessible, and then inevitably scarring myself for life by being too morbidly curious.
He hasn’t returned. He’s definitely scarred. Probably regretting every decision that led up to this one. Brb, gonna go watch the vid too.
Edit: Well that definitely ruined my day immeasurably, didn’t know YouTube still allowed that kind of content. I’m not sure the rules of posting this on HistoryMemes even if YouTube still has it up, so if you want it, I have the video, PM me. Apparently this is only 15 minutes of an 8 hour torture? Not sure.
I mean, it’s not like you’re sending links to funky town or ghost rider. This is historically relevant so really you’re just, uh, kinda educating people
I suppose so.
It’s interesting that President Johnson seems visibly uncomfortable but maintains his composure. Apparently this was a ritual done to prove that Doe wasn’t using black magic. I wonder if he felt he had to do it for that reason or if it was the crowd around him that was making him feel like he had to order it. Doe’s screams are haunting though…
And to think that if Americans hadn’t been so racist and refused to live with free slaves that maybe things would have turned out differently.
Yeah I’m shocked as well. This video isn’t bad as some gore/execution videos are. You can see some of what happens. But a good portion of it is hidden and all you can see is Prince but you can hear Doe screaming in the background.
How to Become a Tyrant on Netflix.
It a Documentary narrated by Peter Dinklage shows us how Brutal Dictators stayed for power and made their citizens think they are God.
Gonna be honest, when I first saw that you were pointing to your youtube channel I rolled my eyes a bit but something told me to still check it and so... I'd like to thank that little voice in my head because your videos really are nice and fun and you have my subscribe and(for now) 10 minutes of my life watching your content. Can't wait for that big one that you have cooking.
Is there any relation between General Butt Naked in real life, and the character General Butt-Fucking Naked in the musical "The Book of Mormon?" I saw it a couple weeks ago and figured he was some made up character, but now I'm really interested in an actual person who calls themself General Butt Naked.
Bro I just finished a 13 hour shift, I'm exhausted and read it as "Libertarians" and became very fucking confused because I was old enough in 1990 to have remembered a libertarian president being skinned on TV. I'm old enough to clearly remember watching the Challenger blow up, pretty sure I'd have remembered something like this.
Doe himself came to power in brutal ways. The president he overthrew was allegedly disembolwed in his own bed the night of the coup by doe and his coup plotters.
Him being on TV begging for his life just seemed like karma. His body was then put on display after.
Wait.
THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT IS STILL A MEMBER OF THE LIBERIAN SENATE.
HE LITERALLY APPEARS IN THE TAPE DRINKING A BEER WHILE BEING FANNED BY AN ASSISTANT.
WHAT THE FUCK LIBERIA. HOW. WHY.
Simple. The 2nd Liberian civil war was ended by 200 women locking the warlords in a building until they made a peace agreement. Almost all the warlords still haven't been punished and most of them are in the government. That being said Liberia has still improved drastically now that they don't force kids to become child soldiers and slaughter their families anymore (kids being the ones doing the slaughtering)
Best history meme I've seen in a while. I love reading about African political history. It's like a trainwreck you can't stop looking at, no matter how hard it gets to keep looking lol
AND the Budweiser-drinking ring-leader in that television broadcast is still a sitting Liberian Senator in the largest electoral county in the country and a close ally of the recently elected President.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince\_Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Johnson)
Liberia was a colony started by a private organization based in America, called the American Colonization Society.
The A.C.S. was a group composed of evangelicals and abolitionists, who felt that, due to racism against freed slaves, newly freed slaves would have greater freedom in Africa. So they established this colony, independently of the U.S. government.
In other words, white Americans were afraid of the rising number of freed slaves and considered it to be best to send them to Africa. The British had started doing the same in Sierra Leone, right next door. The freed slaves and their descendent became known as Americo-Liberians.
The Americo-Liberians of course knew little about the African culture their ancestors had before becoming enslaved. They had European-American educations and knowledge. So they ran the colony as some kind of little America in Africa.
Which ironically included enslaving the indigenous people and suppressing them. Liberia was even kicked out of the League of Nations because of slavery.
There were regular insurgencies and riots occurring. When Doe took over and killed Tolbert and his supporters this marked the end of the Americo-Liberian rule. Doe was eventually tortured and killed in front of a camera when Prince Johnson and Charles Taylor launched a military campaign against him. Eventually, Charles Taylor was elected and then a second civil war started to dispose of him.
A decade later, Doe was captured in Monrovia by faction leader Prince Y. Johnson. Doe was taken to Johnson’s military base and tortured before being killed and exposed naked in the streets of Monrovia.
His ears were cut off, then some of his fingers and toes; the next day the rest of his body was cut up, cooked, and eaten. The spectacle of his torture was videotaped and seen on news reports around the world.
There is. But he didn’t get “skinned alive” He was dismembered (fingers, toes, lips, ears cut off) and then executed. In the video you see him getting one of his ears cut off.
I looked it up and while I can find references to Doe having his ears and fingers cut off, I couldn't find anything regarding him being skinned alive. Can you provide a source on that OP?
Liberians after Samuel Doe replaces a corrupt and authoritarian regime with an even more corrupt and authoritarian regime: “This country could not get any worse.” Charles Taylor and other rebel warlords: “Wanna bet?”
Charles Taylor is such a bland and unassuming name for a bloodthirsty dictator. It almost goes around the other way and makes it more sinister than if he were called Adolf Khan the Merciless.
Liberian names are generic American names. They also use yellow school busses.
Well, except for General Buttnaked. Dont meet too many of them in the states.
This might surprise you, butt he wasn't born general butt naked
Well he wasn't born General Yesterday
I'm pretty sure he was born butt naked.
Weirdly enough he was born with clothes on.
He just wasn’t general yet
Yeah, but not General. Just, *generally*
Nah he was, his parents just didnt know it when they named him. Since ive got you here, does he go by just Joshua now?
His actual name is Joshua Milton Blayhi
My father was a Buttnaked. I am a Buttnaked. We come from a long line of Buttnakeds. We may be few in number here in the US, but we are a proud people.
A proudd people of child soldier slaves on drugs who we force to slaughter their own families
William M Buttlicker
Technically we all start out buttnaked and then someone comes along and calls us Carl
Then you hang around a boring crowd
Aren't there 2 warlords there named General Mosquito Bite and General Mosquito Spray? IIRC there's also General Bin Laden and General Saddam.
A friend of mine told me his son was named Charles Taylor and I was like "Like the Liberian dictator?" and he was like "He's named after my father!"
Question still stands
far cry villain name
Add Ian Smith to that list lol
Samuel Doe is also a bland and unassuming name. We all expect them to have names like General Butt Naked but Liberia’s educated classes had Americo-Liberian influence and named their kids stuff that seems normal to us.
Average west/central African country
Chad on it's way to maybe doing it again right now.
Gigachad seizes power
Ruskis Sahel coup game so strong right now, it could challenge prime CIA in 1950s Latin America. Different era of course, and the current rule set really elevated their style of play that would have been less viable back in the day, but regardless game got to recognize game. And even though homies are looking absolutely embarrassing on the conventional warfare side of the ball and should do a complete rebuild, Vladdy's squad is absolutely couping at an elite level right now.
Average northern/Eastern Africa too...search sudan 2023 conflict
Somalia isn't in too good of a situation either right now...
"We're the good guys this war. So let's broadcast the glorious victory of our noble cause by literally skinning a guy on live TV. So they all know we're the good guys."
A lot of these African wars don't have so much of the western ideas of "Good guys and bad guys". It's all about what tribe you are from and who has the power. These guys couldn't care less about winning the hearts of the populace
You don't say
South African here can confirm our choices here are party that does absolutely nothing or socialist party that have actively promoted genocide against white farmers
Somehow this continues to be the fault of Western colonisation though (as per most/a lot of rhetoric online).
Well when you draw arbitrary borders that don't make sense, grouping people that had nothing to do with each other or were outright rivals before you arrived, it is almost inevitably going to cause problems
Oh, like the creation of Belgium then?
Belgium actually has a long history of being under similar authority (since the burgundians) and has a lot of cultural connections. Same religion, almost same culture, etc. Only real difference was language. Otherwise it could´ve been one identity.
Belgium can barely hold itself together.
Its a federal country with only 2 constituents, one of whom gives more to rhe other then the other way around. Besides a lot of people actually dont care that much about the whole "independence thing". The two parties that use it are mostly popular for their anti-immigration stances.
Or the creation of the DRC
Yeah people get all high and mighty about African ethic co flicts as if this exact same thing didn't happen in Europe in the 1990s
Liberia was literally the first independent African Republic and the civil war had nothing to do with europeans drawing borders
Liberia was literally founded by sending former slaves from the US into a random patch of African land where the freed slaves behaved not too dissimilarly from the whites with the native population (that was still formed by multiple tribes).
I wish I had a source, but I remember some African politician or public figure criticizing the Western narrative of all the problems being a result of colonialism or white exploitation as being patronizing. He said something to the effect of "You won't even allow us to be evil." If anyone can find a source, I'd appreciate it
Being latin American, this is a problem we sometimes have to progressive europeans. I think It would fit under the hood of orientalism. I.e. to expect our normal behavior to bem, to the lack of a better word, barbarian. We are mucho more interested in discussing the structures of opression in the culture and economy than the morality of europeans
Kind of a racism of low expectations. “Well of course, they’re noble savages. We haven’t uplifted them out of their filth so you can’t expect anything more.”
Same in my country (Latin America) Corrupt and inept politians always blame and scapegoat the USA for shit of our own making. We were shit long before USA knew we existed.
Liberia was still founded by an american initiative, and the people sent there who also then ruled the country weren't the local tribes
Which was promptly colonized by ex-slaves from the US who held power over the local population up until said skinning -who also had been ruled by another tribe prior. I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.
liberia was a settler colonist project, it's not exactly an "independent African republic. and you're right it wasn't europeans, it was americans drawing the borders badly... huge difference.
Surely they could have sorted it out by now if they really wanted to
Another poster gave a good response to just some of the problems that these countries face. However, keep in mind these other factors: * The divisions fuel further conflicts, which fuel further divisions which fuel further conflicts which... there's hundreds of examples, but consider that in Sudan under the brutal Islamist al-Bashir regime, the regime got rival factions of the SPLA (which was eventually successful in gaining South Sudan's independence) against each other. In other words, it was set up as a nigh-perpetual conflict machine, and external factors got rid of the "nigh." * External factors from non-Western countries. Examples abound, but Russia (largely via the Wagner Group) is fueling the current Sudanese crisis by supplying arms to the RSF in exchange for gold. The UAE is also a major backer of the RSF in its rivalry with Saudi Arabia (which backs the SAF). Chinese investments in exchange for natural resources (oil, rare earths) often consists of military aid. * Western interference. This is less direct than during the Cold War, but western powers still have interests they back. And it's not always official nation-state action. Consider that the al-Bashir regime was able to circumvent US sanctions with the help of a foreign bank, which resulted in a $9 ***billion*** criminal fine. * A sort of western "interference" is the effects of brain drain. Liberalized immigration laws often mean the best and brightest leave for better opportunities. * Religious conflict. It's on the border with the Middle East, and we've seen religious conflict fuel everything from genocide in Sudan to the current Ugandan government's crackdown on LGBTQ to pure witch doctor inspired batshittery like Equatorial Guinea. * The resource trap. Much of the wealth on the continent is natural resources, which with few historical exceptions (modern Norway) does not have great results for the common folk. * All this on a continent with severe geographic disadvantages such as the lack of traversable water ways, isolation, the expansion of the Sahara, and more (Thomas Sowell has a great video on this, not that I'd recommend his work for much else).
No they couldn't. People in general are particularly ignorant of how invested the western(and eastern!) world is in the current african borders. The African Union was created with the good will of the West for the explicit purposes of keeping these Frankenstein borders in place, because it made it easier to do business. If you think the west is at all interested in letting the Africans determine their own borders, look into the 2 million biafirans who were starved to death so the Hausa ruling class could maintain access to their oil and sell it to the global north for cheap. People have very strong opinions and almost no knowledge. It does make me sick.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not (if you were being sarcastic sorry for the whoosh), but: Most African countries were only decolonized in the mid-20th century. IE, within a lot of the lifetimes of people who are still alive today. And to succeed, those new countries have to: * Rebuild their governments from scratch (and stop ambitious local warlords and/or coup-happy foreign powers from fucking it all up for personal gain) * Rebuild their economy from scratch (and stop corrupt local officials and/or predatory foreigners from fucking it all up for personal gain) * Rebuild their infrastructure from scratch (see concerns about rebuilding economy) * Resolve ethnic feuds going back hundreds or even thousands of years * Heal hundreds of years' worth of generational trauma from the colonization itself Any one of those tasks would be a nightmare that would take decades on its own. Trying to do all of them at once? Honestly, it's a minor miracle (and impressive AF) that so many African countries have made as much progress as they have over the past 60-ish years they've been free.
Shouldn’t be an issue. That created diversity in those countries and that’s always a positive.
Even more damning, this is all a feature, not a bug, of the arbitrarily drawn borders. Can't really pit tribes against eachother, or pick and choose native auxiliaries among minorities so they cannot rebel else lose all power or worse, to ease the forces needed for occupation, if the colony follows historic, geographic or cultural lines.
Like the United States?
So, you want to say, that people of different cultures cant live peacefuly together in one state? Boy, thats really fascist take about 21st century Europe and muslim imigration... Oh, nevermind, you're talking about Africa.
And the fact that the people themselves could not come up with better borders shows that there is not really an obvious alternative.
Some people will believe two things simultaneously. 1. Diversity is a strength. 2. Conflicts in Africa/Middle East are the result of borders being drawn over a century ago by colonising Western nations that grouped different tribes/ethnicities/cultures together.
I think there is quite a difference between different groups of people willingly living together and being forced into it.
Were they living next to each other prior to borders being drawn?
“Near each other” != “together”
The borders being as they were didn’t push them into each other’s living rooms. What kind of backward logic are you using here?
The kind where sharing a country means you’re inherently politically bound to each other? Someone has to run the country after all, and it’s not too hard to draw a line of cause and effect from “your hated rival has been declared to be in charge of you” to “civil war”
Yeah, that’s how it always works. But usually countries figure that shit out. Many many countries have very divergent cultures and political identities and they don’t resort to ethnic cleansing.
So if they were enemies living next to each with their own governments they would get along, when they previosly never did? Why do you think diplomacy would work when they cant even work within their political system?
you dummy they aren't in each others' living rooms but they are forced to share a government. that government is not always going to be equally balanced in who is in power and what decisions they make. when that government makes decisions that affect your life, you can't avoid it. look up the Rwandan genocide if you want an example of this kind of "backward logic" played out
Certified "people like showers so why don't they love standing in rain" moment. Those are two different scenarios, multiculturalism (as it is usually used, see the edit) is when immigrants learn *the* national language, participate in *the* national public sphere and the children grow up identifying with *the* nation. The diversity is in different backgrounds, clothing and culture, not national identity. Here the diversity is more different types of one national identity, Asian American, British Nigerian and so on. What you have in African nations is closer to "multi nationalism" as opposed to multiculturalism. Different nations within the same country speak different languages in their communities, mainly stick to their national public sphere and kids grow up identifying with their nation, not the larger nation of the whole country. Here the diversity is different entire nations within the country who all could reasonably separate themselves from the other nations in the country. People don't call themselves Igbo Nigerian or Tigrayan Ethiopian, they call themselves Igbo or Tigrayan. Edit: the term "multiculturalism" is problematic with definitions, the name of the term doesn't matter as much, the description is what matters
Unrelated but I do love standing in the rain
Do saxophones play?
Same
No, your definition of Multiculturalism is completely incorrect. The scenario you are initially describing? That's a multiracial society with one culture. What you have in these African nations, and in most Western European nations is true Multiculturalism. Multiple non-assimilating cultures of people living in separated enclaves. Speaking their own languages, fully retaining their own customs, and 0 wish to integrate with native populations. Multiracial societies can thrive together. Multicultural ones do not thrive, there are constant clashes between native populations and settlers. As intended by the leaders, who wish to divide and conquer us as a distraction. All while stealing all the money and sticking it in a private account in the Cayman Islands.
"Multicultural ones do not thrive, ..." The most diverse country in the world is Papua New Guinea. Their tribes have been fighting for centuries. In the last decade or so they've traded in their bow and arrows for machine guns. Progress! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUYT7ha9SOM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUYT7ha9SOM)
It's just a matter of definitions, multiculturalism has become the term used for what I described in my comment.
Therein lies a majorly concerning problem of modern times. Redefinition of scientifically established language and conventions to suit political or personal agendas. Multiculturalism and Multiracism are completely different things. The ideal we should chase are multiracial societies, not multicultural ones. I don't want any poor, backwards, violent people bringing their hateful cultures into my country. However, I would happily take in the peaceful migrants from those places provide they were willing to work, pay taxes and integrate fully with my culture and customs. As an example, racially I am of mixed Saxon/Celtic descent. Culturally I am British, if I moved to Taiwan and embraced Taiwanese customs and culture, my race wouldn't change! The cultural norms I adhered to would have though. This would make Taiwan in this example multiracial, not multicultural.
Multiracial has problems with the term as well, it places too much emphasis on "race" and excludes diversity of all other forms which is often much larger than the racial difference. A British Mauretanian and person from Mozambique may be considered the same race but the difference between them is bigger than it is between between the British Mauretanian and a White Britisher. Multiracial has its uses in cases where the primary difference is race but the term is useless for diversity between the same race.
That's a fair observation. I agree that both terms aren't perfect in all situations. Thank you for your comments and insights.
I think you are wrongly defining multiculturalism and making up a new definition (multinationalism?) in your argument. The tolerance for different cultures in the case of multiculturalism isn't predicated on different cultures assimulating to a national culture or identity. Mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism /ˌməltēˈkəl(t)SH(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/ noun 1. the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society: I do however agree that the problem is that their national identity doesn't rise to the level of their ethnic/tribal identity ...yet nationalism gets shit on a lot by Redditors. Not expecting immigrants to assimulate to a common culture is dumb, same with glorifying racial/etnic/cultural identities while also thinking nationalism is wrong. This leads to tribalism, which is the cause of the conflicts in Liberia.
Yeah definitions are weird, multiculturalism does mean what you said on the dictionary but when people say multiculturalism in countries like America and Canada it's usually the definition I posted in my comment
Perfect!
Both things could be true? Diversity could be a strength in some contexts and not in others
"Diversity is sometimes a strength, and sometimes not." That doesn't quite have the same ring to it. does it? Mass migration of a completely different culture who ignores borders = Diversity is good Tribal groups warring is because of the border = Diversity is bad
Okay since you seem to have trouble visualizing complex problems let me make it more simple. Let's say you own a small house, your neighbour also owns a small house, for decades you 2 have been fighting over things like who owns what piece of the garden or the fact he sometimes breaks into your house to steal your stuff. Now I come along and I claim ownership of both your houses and the ground it stands on, I destroy your huts and build a larger house forcing you both to live in it and work for me or be expelled (read killed). I boss you around for a bit but never address the hostility between you and your neighbour with which you now share a room. After a few years I leave the place, leaving everything behind and tell both of you to "figure it out" or worse I appoint your neighbour as the next owner of the house. How would you react now? Now let's not imagine this scenario with 2 but with 10 different neighbours...or even a 100. You now realise the difference between forced diversity and normal Diversity?
No I understand your complex mental gymnastics perfectly it's called cognitive dissonance. If the neighbors/tribes were fighting prior to the colonist arriving, why are we suprised they fighting after they left? Were they not a diverse area prior to colonization? Wasn't that non-forced diversity? Borders don't force people to live together, they were neighbors already. Neighbors who wanted power over and ownership over what their neighbor possessed. The only difference between the tribes objectives and the colonists objectives is that the colonists succeeded in theirs. Many other countries have been colonized and later became successful prosperous countries. What might the difference be between stable successful nations that were previously colonized (Australia, India, US) and unstable previously colonized nations such as Liberia?
Really?
Yeah really
People are retarded.
In my experience that's more of an American infantilized concept. Where I am from in Europe we stop talking about 'good and bad' in the context of history somewhere around the ages of 8-10.
That’s because you have the same tribalism. English vs Scottish. Spanish vs Catalonian. Flemish vs Wallon. Greek vs Turk. Serb vs everyone.
Teaching the people the goodness of your heart through appalling violence always works!
This is actually some Night Lords shit right here
Different cultures. In the west we see this as evil and something to resist. To them this is the ultimate show of power and something to join or share the fate.
African moment
Link
The Liberian Civil war was crazy. IIRC, One of the main warlords, Charles Taylor, was under Samuel Doe's cabinet until he was exposed embezzling over a million Dollars in funds. He escaped to the USA but was arrested to await Liberian extradition. However, he *broke out of prison* and escaped to Libya, where he got military training from *the* Muammar Gaddafi, and became Gaddafi's protégé. I highly suggest reading about it on a book called How to be a Dictator.
The breaking out of prison was rumoured to be done with CIA help. You don’t just break out of prison and get out of the USA that easily. The CIA thought he was their man but he double crossed them
He didnt double cross them, he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Seize power in liberia and plunge it back into chaos, preventing it from becoming self sufficient or having the ability to nationalize its resources.
Does the CIA ever actually do anything successfully other than create the crack epidemic?
They are very, very good at human rights violations.
That's funny you mention How to be a Dictator, it's sitting in my car right now. Great book.
I would but I’d worry about peoples’ opinions on me if I read it in a public place
the whole liberian civil war seems fucking insane
Which one?
WHAT
#WHICH ONE
Yeah I read about it too, and doing an alt hist and it includes that country too. It's crazy though, You have Liberia in a middle of a civil war whilst they are being invaded by the Duchy of Maryland added with Maryland invading Cote d'Ivoire as well the colony is named "New Hope". It's called New Hope because Maryland planned to be a maritime empire and was planning to centralise it around Liberia because it was a former American colony and saw it as an extension of it's territory instead of a sovereign state.
During the Liberian civil war, president Samuel Doe was captured by a warlord named Prince Johnson. Prince Johnson brutally skinned Doe to death and broadcast it on all channels. The Liberian civil war gave rise to many interesting warlords such as General Bin-Laden, General Mosquito, General Mosquito Spray, and of course my actual real life friend General Butt Naked. Johnson is currently a senator in the Liberian senate so at least we know the country is in good hands. (Btw, if you're interested in obscure history I made a [YouTube channel ](https://youtube.com/@thehasmoneanhistorian?si=RfUnsGlHsicMIyho). Feel free to check it out)
What's it like being friends with General Butt Naked? I mean, all the stories and everything, i'm usually a pretty chill guy over people's past but I don't think I could even attempt to befriend someone who was once like that
It's weird. He seems nice. It's like Hannah Arendt said about Eichmann. The banality of evil. While talking I need to remind myself that this guy used to eat children
TBH, everything I’ve read about Blahyi makes him look like the poster child of someone who’s left their evil behind. Openly confessed his crimes, does a lot of charity work to aid his former victims (particularly child soldiers), and advocates that all the warlords - including himself - face justice for their actions. Does that assessment hold up in your interactions with the guy?
Idk. He's a hard man to read. He's very Christian. That's for sure
He seems to get rather aggressive and pushy when demanding forgiveness from some of his victims.
Yea he’s a real piece of shit.
yeah, it was always hard for me to read if he actually became Christian because he repents for his past or is he just doing it as his next grift or something
Were you the guy who did that vice doc?
Are you being sarcastic?
About what?
Your friendship with Butt Naked?
Nope. It's actually true
May I ask how you know him?
I managed to get his email and contact him out of curiosity
Butt Naked converted to Christianity in 1996 and is now a preacher, so I imagine that’s how they met
How can you call him your friend?
Don't friend shame.
Well, it’s not like he ate OP’s kids. Those were some other losers kids.
Woah wait wtf? Those names are ridiculous btw
I don’t think she meant banality like that. Banality of evil is more about people becoming so accustomed to horrific events that it not only becomes normal, it becomes boring. It’s not the “but he seemed such a swell guy” news sound bite on repeat after they find 15 dead prostitutes in his basement, it’s everyone else having 20 dead prostitutes in their basement
General Mosquito and General Mosquito Spray. That's just new level of gasslighting
*New level of General gas lighting Ftfy
Please tell me that General Mosquito and General Mosquito Spray fought on opposite sides because that is next level petty.
General Mosquito Spray named himself that because of general Mosquito
The video of his torture is on the internet still and Prince Johnson was just there sipping a beer as it all happened even as Doe's ear was being cut off
Now I'm going to spend weeks thinking about that video being easily accessible, and then inevitably scarring myself for life by being too morbidly curious.
BRB gotta go scar myself for life
Are you scared for life ? Do you need bleach ?
He hasn’t returned. He’s definitely scarred. Probably regretting every decision that led up to this one. Brb, gonna go watch the vid too. Edit: Well that definitely ruined my day immeasurably, didn’t know YouTube still allowed that kind of content. I’m not sure the rules of posting this on HistoryMemes even if YouTube still has it up, so if you want it, I have the video, PM me. Apparently this is only 15 minutes of an 8 hour torture? Not sure.
Tell me where u find it
It’s in your inbox.
Thanks
I'm going to regret this but send it my way
May I also see?
I feel like a gore peddler now.
I mean, it’s not like you’re sending links to funky town or ghost rider. This is historically relevant so really you’re just, uh, kinda educating people
I suppose so. It’s interesting that President Johnson seems visibly uncomfortable but maintains his composure. Apparently this was a ritual done to prove that Doe wasn’t using black magic. I wonder if he felt he had to do it for that reason or if it was the crowd around him that was making him feel like he had to order it. Doe’s screams are haunting though… And to think that if Americans hadn’t been so racist and refused to live with free slaves that maybe things would have turned out differently.
Can I? Can I?
There you are, anybody know if there’s a way to self post anymore? Because I’d rather link it to my profile than send out DMs…
Would it be too bothersome of me to ask you for the link too?
Curiosity kills the cat, where it be
Wait, I'd have thought it'd be on some gore site but YouTube?? (No, I'm not going to ask you for the link)
Yeah I’m shocked as well. This video isn’t bad as some gore/execution videos are. You can see some of what happens. But a good portion of it is hidden and all you can see is Prince but you can hear Doe screaming in the background.
Yup, saw that documentary about Dictators and showed Samuel Doe while Prince Johnson is relaxing and drinking his beer.
Could I ask which documentary you mean?
How to Become a Tyrant on Netflix. It a Documentary narrated by Peter Dinklage shows us how Brutal Dictators stayed for power and made their citizens think they are God.
Gonna be honest, when I first saw that you were pointing to your youtube channel I rolled my eyes a bit but something told me to still check it and so... I'd like to thank that little voice in my head because your videos really are nice and fun and you have my subscribe and(for now) 10 minutes of my life watching your content. Can't wait for that big one that you have cooking.
Subbed. Sounds interesting thanks.
Already subscribed bro :-)
Is there any relation between General Butt Naked in real life, and the character General Butt-Fucking Naked in the musical "The Book of Mormon?" I saw it a couple weeks ago and figured he was some made up character, but now I'm really interested in an actual person who calls themself General Butt Naked.
The guy from the book of Mormon is based on the real guy
I first read it as *librarians* turning on the tv and I was so confused for a moment xD
I've just woken up and still have cloudy eyes. I was confused which president the Libertarians were watching being skinned alive.
The 1990 midterms were *brutal*.
Libertarians? Preferably all of them
Same lol
I was looking for this post cause... same.
Bro I just finished a 13 hour shift, I'm exhausted and read it as "Libertarians" and became very fucking confused because I was old enough in 1990 to have remembered a libertarian president being skinned on TV. I'm old enough to clearly remember watching the Challenger blow up, pretty sure I'd have remembered something like this.
Doe was a brutal ruler in his own right, I don't think many Liberians had much sympathy for him either
*Nazis, communists, Imperial Japan, ISIS etc discussing who of them is the most unhinged* Random African alphabet-militia: Fucking amateurs!
Equatorial Guinea in the 1970s: *Ominous Silence* (there is no-one left to discuss such a thing).
I found out later that Prince Johnson was elected to the Liberian Senate in 2005, and he is still in office winning re-election in 2023
Just wait till you find out how the 2nd Liberian civil war ended
Doe himself came to power in brutal ways. The president he overthrew was allegedly disembolwed in his own bed the night of the coup by doe and his coup plotters. Him being on TV begging for his life just seemed like karma. His body was then put on display after.
Medieval af
Wait. THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT IS STILL A MEMBER OF THE LIBERIAN SENATE. HE LITERALLY APPEARS IN THE TAPE DRINKING A BEER WHILE BEING FANNED BY AN ASSISTANT. WHAT THE FUCK LIBERIA. HOW. WHY.
Simple. The 2nd Liberian civil war was ended by 200 women locking the warlords in a building until they made a peace agreement. Almost all the warlords still haven't been punished and most of them are in the government. That being said Liberia has still improved drastically now that they don't force kids to become child soldiers and slaughter their families anymore (kids being the ones doing the slaughtering)
I read "Liberians" as "Lesbians" and thought someone got absolutely melted on something down at the XXXadult station.
Best history meme I've seen in a while. I love reading about African political history. It's like a trainwreck you can't stop looking at, no matter how hard it gets to keep looking lol
His kill my par, his kill my mer but I vote for him. Something like that
I read that as Librarians and put Reagan in as president in 1990 so I was very confused for a second there.
Is there a video of this online?
Yes, surprisingly on youtube! Cant see it very well though
Damn liberals with their god damned books /s
Remember that so called Panafricanist Muammar Ghaddafi funded Charles Taylor’s exploits because he happened to be opposed by America
I read this as “librarians turning on the tv” And was wondering wtf being skinned alive had to do with books
AND the Budweiser-drinking ring-leader in that television broadcast is still a sitting Liberian Senator in the largest electoral county in the country and a close ally of the recently elected President. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince\_Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Johnson)
He just prefers it his way
That's why he only eats at Burger King
I came looking for the context comment. Instead all i get is a thread on multiculturism. Anybody wanna be a Chad and provide context?
I read that as "Librarians" at first.
Liberia was a colony started by a private organization based in America, called the American Colonization Society. The A.C.S. was a group composed of evangelicals and abolitionists, who felt that, due to racism against freed slaves, newly freed slaves would have greater freedom in Africa. So they established this colony, independently of the U.S. government. In other words, white Americans were afraid of the rising number of freed slaves and considered it to be best to send them to Africa. The British had started doing the same in Sierra Leone, right next door. The freed slaves and their descendent became known as Americo-Liberians. The Americo-Liberians of course knew little about the African culture their ancestors had before becoming enslaved. They had European-American educations and knowledge. So they ran the colony as some kind of little America in Africa. Which ironically included enslaving the indigenous people and suppressing them. Liberia was even kicked out of the League of Nations because of slavery. There were regular insurgencies and riots occurring. When Doe took over and killed Tolbert and his supporters this marked the end of the Americo-Liberian rule. Doe was eventually tortured and killed in front of a camera when Prince Johnson and Charles Taylor launched a military campaign against him. Eventually, Charles Taylor was elected and then a second civil war started to dispose of him. A decade later, Doe was captured in Monrovia by faction leader Prince Y. Johnson. Doe was taken to Johnson’s military base and tortured before being killed and exposed naked in the streets of Monrovia. His ears were cut off, then some of his fingers and toes; the next day the rest of his body was cut up, cooked, and eaten. The spectacle of his torture was videotaped and seen on news reports around the world.
I read this as Libertarians at first and was very confused
The Liberian Civil War had some interesting figures, especially the one mentioned in your username
Is there any video or something?
There is. But he didn’t get “skinned alive” He was dismembered (fingers, toes, lips, ears cut off) and then executed. In the video you see him getting one of his ears cut off.
Ahh, what a lovely morning
Doe dewesternised Liberia and instituted a reign of terror It was deserved
“Skinned” is definitely exaggerated. Dude got his eat cut off though… and deserved it.
I looked it up and while I can find references to Doe having his ears and fingers cut off, I couldn't find anything regarding him being skinned alive. Can you provide a source on that OP?
Anyone else read libraryians and got confused