Zentmeister

those as young as sixteen could be drafted during WW1

Can people not become sober? And decide to no longer drink?

I can't speak to it with 100% certainty as I'm not from those cultures, but from my understanding it is a difference in culture and mindset, to act out is to be considered abnormal, and delinquent even if in self defense against delinquents, and in a society that prioritizes homogeneity as much as possible, any deviation of the norm is feared by those who expect a proper place in society.

I'm going to save us a lot of time and effort going back and forth, and just query chatgpt to provide specific sources and examples that I know exist without having to scour the internet for them here's a breakdown of why your argument of European nations largely being responsible for Africa's failures post colonialism is factually wrong and fallacious broken down by an impartial and unbiased artificial intelligence: "1. "Western powers are the major contributors to coups, assassinations, and puppet governments in former colonies and third-world countries." The Fallacy: While Western powers have interfered in third-world nations (especially during the Cold War), not every failure in Africa or the third world can be blamed on them. Many coups and assassinations in post-colonial Africa were carried out by Africans themselves, for their own political or ethnic reasons. The Reality: African leaders have overthrown their own governments far more often than foreign powers have. Corruption and dictatorship are often driven by internal power struggles, not just foreign intervention. Examples of African-led coups and civil wars with little to no Western involvement: The Biafra War (Nigeria) The Rwandan Genocide (Hutu vs. Tutsi, no Western involvement) The Eritrean War of Independence South Sudan’s civil wars Uganda under Idi Amin (brutality led by Amin himself, not Western meddling) Counterpoint: If foreign involvement alone were the reason for Africa’s instability, why did other former colonies (India, South Korea, Singapore) succeed despite experiencing foreign meddling? Countries that focused on education, infrastructure, and governance instead of constant blame have developed far beyond their colonizers' influence. 2. "So what are you on about losers and helping themselves when you know they aren't even given the chance to begin with?" The Fallacy: This suggests that Africans are permanently helpless victims who have never had a chance to take control of their own destiny—which is both insulting and historically inaccurate. Many African nations DID have strong, independent leaders after independence—but they often destroyed their own countries through dictatorship, corruption, and mismanagement. The Reality: Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) had a chance to lead Ghana to prosperity but instead ruined the economy with bad policies. Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) inherited a rich nation and turned it into an economic disaster through land seizures, corruption, and hyperinflation. Mobutu Sese Seko (Congo/Zaire) stole billions from his country while blaming colonialism for everything. South Africa had the most developed economy in Africa, but under ANC rule, corruption and mismanagement have led to declining infrastructure and high crime rates. Counterpoint: Many post-colonial leaders were given full control and failed due to their own greed and incompetence. The claim that "they aren't given a chance" ignores the many African leaders who wasted their chance by prioritizing personal power over national development. 3. "As soon as such a leader appears, he/she either gets assassinated or overthrown under the excuse of democracy." The Fallacy: This assumes that every good African leader is assassinated by the West, which is a gross oversimplification. Plenty of African leaders have stayed in power for decades—yet most of them are dictators, not visionaries who were overthrown by foreign governments. The Reality: Yes, the CIA, France, and other Western powers have supported some coups (e.g., Lumumba’s assassination in Congo), but not every African coup is a foreign plot. Most long-term African leaders have NOT been assassinated. Instead, they hold onto power by rigging elections, suppressing opposition, and enriching themselves. Example: Paul Biya (Cameroon) has ruled since 1982. Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) has been in power since 1986. Teodoro Obiang (Equatorial Guinea) has ruled since 1979. None of these dictators have been overthrown by the West—"

I'm about to enter a dentist appointment so I will thoroughly dismantle this argument when I get home and have the proper means to do so. But thank you for the clarification I apologize if I misunderstood and unintentionally misrepresented what you were trying to argue.

Okay alot or misinformation to break down here. first off let me stare how you ignored all evidence that didn't suit your narrative. such as the bantu expansion and evidence of slavery and pre-islamic, pre-european African kingdoms engaging in slavery like Nubia, Ghana, Songhai, Mali, etc. Second Ancient Egyptians were an indigenous group to birth Africa. Arabs refers to a group of people who spread from the Arabian Peninsula during/after the Rise of Islam in the 7th century AD. There was limited contact between ancient Egyptians and people in Arabia back then. Did they have ties to the levantine pre-arabian populations and other Mediterranean socities? most certainly. Did they originate from those regions? Not at all. You're now beyond the point of historical revisionism and are just making up things on the spot to try to justify your crumbling narrative. But you do you bud.

I'm not mocking anyone. To do so would imply some inherent animosity towards people I have never met. It's an absurdity and another poor attempt for you to control the moral imperative. I'm stating the objective fact of history, sub-saharan African societies never developed at a rate to compete with other more advanced parts of the world like Europe, the middle east, and Asia, by the time the Europeans arrived in full force in the 19th century we were dealing with modern industrialized nations, versus literal hunter-gatherers in many cases. There is no feasible reality even if given the most ideal circumstances to develop, where African nations can compete with those who advanced at a higher rate throughout the 5,000+ years of human civilization. It's not personal animosity, it is the logical conclusion of history as it has occurred. Spare me your moralist and revisionist take. I'm not buying what you're selling.

First off, this is a monumentally stupid statement, and one that is completely revisionist in nature. The earliest records of slavery in Africa go back to ancient Egypt. as far back as 3,000 BC there are records of such instances. And we know from the Egyptian records of the new kingdom that the Nubians were also engaged in the practice. So yes, Black Africans south of the Sahara were engaging in slavery as far back as the 1200s BC, second the next recorded instance is West African "empires" like ghana, mali, the songhai, etc, around 1,000+ AD. Why is this the next record we know of? Because it is the next time anyone had any real contact with people south of the Sahara because they had no written language and thus were incapable of keeping written records. The idea that slavery didn't exist before foreigners showed up is completely contradictory to oral traditions of the region, architectural evidence, and of course human nature as all societies had slaves even at a pre-civilization level. What you're doing is making an argument from ignorance fallacy, because we don't have records due to a lack of societal advancement south of the Sahara to confirm slavery existed between ancient nubia (historical records verify this with absolute certainty as far back as 1500 BC with sparse documentation a millennium prior supporting longer), you're assuming it didn't exist period, that's a logical fallacy. Just because sub-sharing never invented a written language or technology capable of preserving their history long term, doesn't mean it didn't happen. All factual, logic, reason, and of course evidence that does exist supports the very opposite of your flawed argument. What evidence does exist, supports that slavery existed across the continent continuously long before the arrival of Europeans and Arabs, whether in Egypt//Nubia, through the Bantu Migrations (2,000 BC to 1500 AD) or even pre-Islamic West African kingdoms Mali, Ghana, and Songhai, most of the evidence from the latter comes from oral traditions, and modern archaeological evidence. You are just factually incorrect in this statement.

Interwar period will be an act, as will WW2, and maybe the cold war era, I'd say the end of the Great war is roughly halfway through the novel if we're following a 4 act plot.

I have answered this before, yes... The narration uses the term Thailand, characters use the term Siam. Because Thailand is a more recognizable term for those in the audience who may not understand what Siam is.