What can /his/ tell me about the history of the Democratic

>>2019923
The DRC was founded after the overthrow of Mobutu by AFDL and a coalition of Eastern Congo states to create a RPF-controlled puppet government that would give legitimacy to Kagame's regime that defied the Arusha accords.

That didn't really work because Laurent Kabila got assasinated which set off the Second Congo War, during which there was a giant vacuum in the Eastern congo and everything got fucked up hard.


That's pretty much the tl;dr.

>>2019923

It only has 2 inherent lies in the name, rather than the 3 that the HRE's got.

It used to be called Zaire right?

They should have stuck with that.

>>2019923
>Stage one: Jungle
>Stage two: Belgians chopping off hands
>Stage three: Total fuckfest of a war caused by them harboring Hutu war criminals from the Rwandan Genocide

>>2019954
>Stage two: Hands being chopped off on orders of the Belgian king, with the be Belgian state stepping in to fix things and then not really fixing that much.
100% historically accurate now

>>2019923
its a wild ride from past to present

>>2019954
>harboring Hutu war criminals from the Rwandan Genocide
Well, you're one third correct. The reasons for the Congo war go kind of like this.

The first reason was because the former FAR (Rwandan army) had snuck the majority of its arms through the border before the end of the war, and were getting help from Mobutu and Angola to rearm and mobilize against RPF ("Tutsi" rebels)-controlled Rwanda. They were crushed pretty decisively in the first few weeks, if not days of the First Congo War. Kagame was actually very willing to forgive a lot of former FAR and former Interhamwe, and only brings up >muh genocide whenever his political position is threatened (e.g., gacaca courts).

The second reason is more of a popular support reason. The Banyamulenge are 16th century Rwandan emigres in the Eastern Congo region who are traditionally asssociated with the Tutsi ( since I'm not an academic my opinion on whether or not they *are* Tutsi is unimportant). Mobutu, fearing dissent from the Banyamulenge following his support of the FAR waged a radio propaganda smear campaign against the Banyamulenge ("Make Zaire great again, remove Tutsi") which resulted in some, but not much violence against the Banyamulenge by the EC natives. Rwandans reacted to this by basically wanting to liberate them from their Congolese oppressors, so went to war to overthrow Mobutu.

The third reason is pretty much the reason given here: >>2019946

>>2020123
Because you seem to actually know what you're talking about I've got a question. Someone told me that the Hutu/Tutsi divisions in Rwanda and the surrounding region mostly became an issue in the colonial period due to a kind of divide and rule policy on the part of the Europeans, and prior to that period that particular distinction wasn't as significant an issue.
I always thought that explanation was a bit 'noble savage-y' and was predicated on an assumption that everything bad in Africa is a consequence of colonialism - but do you think there's an element of truth in it?

>>2019947
>obssessed

>>2019923
This place is literally hell on earth. Crisis of children orphaned on the streets of Kinshasa because their parents believe they are witches, mass rape of pygmies for their 'magical powers', constant civil war involving sexual war crimes, HIV skyrocketing coming in from mercenaries from further south raping villages, I could go on

>>2020331
>I always thought that explanation was a bit 'noble savage-y' and was predicated on an assumption that everything bad in Africa is a consequence of colonialism - but do you think there's an element of truth in it?
Okay, so first I want to say that I'm not ultra educated on this topic. There are basically two different narratives that show up.

>Narrative 1
So, the first narrative basically says that Hutu and Tutsi are a Rwandan class distinction (i.e., not ethnic) that existed pre-colonially. Tutsis tended to be pastoralist because they had enough wealth to buy cows, whereas Hutu tended the land of the ruling Tutsi class and thus were defined as agricultural. This is justifiable since throughout Africa the ownership of cattle is associated with wealth moreso than crop tending.
Their theory states that this class division was turned into a tribal division by Belgian colonial policy, which defined Hutu and Tutsi by their features rather than way of life, ancestry or really anything else that would make more sense.

This argument is further supported by the fact that Hutu and Tutsi lived in the same settlements, spoke the same language and that there's no totally conclusive DNA evidence that they are two separate populations.

Now, to be totally clear, they aren't saying that Hutu and Tutsi were totally great and got along together and that there weren't big conflicts between a ruling and subjugated class - in fact, there are folklore stories of huge Hutu massacres by Tutsi kings. All the theory is saying that the Hutu-Tutsi relationship was mis-characterized as an interethnic, rather than intrasocietal one.

>Narrative 2
Narrative 2 basically says that Tutsi were (probably) immigrants from the Nile region that migrated south along the East Africa Rift. This is supported by some subset of the Tutsi population having specific markers that are associated with that region. I don't know much about DNA analysis. (cont)

This guy two posts above posts in every thread about blacks or Africa. Just don't respond to him

>>2020833
But I do know that the DNA evidence is inconclusive enough to be dismissed by a lot of scholars.

Anyway, what the second narrative says is that the pastoral Tutsi then subjugated the agricultural Hutu. Pastoralist-Agricultural aggression is really common in Africa, even in current times, so I guess this type of subjugation isn't unheard of.

Anyway, the point is that both Narrative 1 and 2 are supportable. I tend to lean towards 1 only because many of the leaders of the group who support narrative 2 are Rwandan scholars, who one could argue may have a vested interest in a racial reading of the Rwandan genocide to work, due to both internal political pressures, as well as their personal experiences.

But honestly, I think you're right. A lot of people take the "Hotel Rwanda" stance (black people are all brothers and sisters! Belgians messed up everything), which is wrong. The distinctions were important in the pre-colonial era, but they also weren't causing violent societal collapses, the Kingdom of Rwanda was actually one of the most stable places in East Africa, and one of the last to be colonized.

idk if I really answered your question, but I hope this helps.

>>2019947
It is both a republic, as there is no monarch, and it is Congolese. Only one incorrect part of it.

>>2020973

Lack of a monarchy doesn't make something a republic.

A republic is a government in which popular sovereignty is exercised through some sort of system of appointed representatives. That is most definitely not the DRC, so it is not a republic.

>>2019923
I don't know a ton, but here goes:

>Belgian king sets up a private corporate state in the Congo
>runs it brutally, hand-chopping, etc
>belgian state takes it, tries to make it better
>fails
>Congo gets independence, elects dirty commie Lumumba president
>Katanga (southeast DRC) secedes, rebels pop up
>belgium and CIA assassinate Lumumba, give control to Mobutu
>Mobutu is in power for 30 years
>Rwandan genocide happens, Hutu perpetrators flee into DRC
>Mobutu lets them stay to antagonize Tutsi Rwanda
>Kagame is having none of his shit
>puts together pan-african alliance, gives it a coat of Congolese paint with the AFDL (Kabila's rebels)
>curbstomp the fuck out of Mobutu, owing to both the professionalism of the Rwandan army and the absolute joke that was Mobutu's army
>Make Kabila president
>Kabila is a dick to the Rwandans
>Kabila is a dick to everyone
>Rwanda declares war to take him out
>get halfway there, even capture Kinshasa airport, but Angola and Zimbabwe stop them
>Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and assorted eastern rebels face off against Kabila, Angola, and Zimbabwe
>whole country turns into giant clusterfuck
>Rwandans and Ugandans start fighting
>random rebel groups pop up
>Rwandans are killing anyone they can get their hands on
>Ugandans are killing anyone they can get their hands on
>Kabila's men are killing anyone they can get their hands on
>random rebels are killing anyone they can get their hands on
>lots of people starve
>corporations from Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe loot the DRC for all it's worth
>Finally, Kabila's allies abandon him
>He gets merked by his own bodyguard for reasons no one knows
>his son takes power, goes on international diplomatic offensive
>makes Rwanda out to be the bad guy
>gets a peace deal
>Kabila's son is still president of the DRC
>Kagame is still president of Rwanda
>Museveni is still president of Uganda
>Mugabe is still president of Zimbabwe
>Dos Santos is still president of Angola
>nothing
>ever
>changes

>>2021094
Oh, if you're interested in the 90s Congo Wars, read Dancing in the Glory of Monsters, by Jason Stearns

>>2021094
Lumumba wasn't a Communist bro.

>>2019952
>DRC doesn't sound better in a rap

File: Portuguese emissary statue from Benin.jpg (403KB, 1867x2800px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1867x2800px

>>2019923
The old Kongo was a decent kingdom ruled by weak kings by the time Portuguese explorers arrived. Very interested in these pale men, they took to Christianity strongly in order to align with the powerful foreigners. They received guns, scholarly missionaries, and Latinized names. The nobility eventually was full of Catholics who made admittedly little effort to convert the populace. God made His way into the Kongo heartland, but more so as a grand sky father more than the One, true God.

This was in the 16th century. Eventually, some Kongolese cardinals show up in the Vatican. They speak Latin, follow proper Church code, and even vote on the Pope like the other Cardinals do. When war came to the region, the king under his name Portuguese name "Afonso" led a much smaller army against a large army of traditionalists and angry neighbor tribes. The African and Jesuit accounts both state that the enemy army was routed in battle when an apparition of a saint appeared among the Catholic army. The enemy leader was slain during the route and the news of such a miracle spread far.

With their native land being an elective monarchy, and not hereditary, the king's passing caused some turmoil. The son of Afonso, Pedro took the throne by a slim margin of votes. He was soon overthrown by his nephew, Diogo - a Kongolese prince educated in Europe for many years. When Diogo officially won the coup, his uncle Pedro fled into a church for asylum. Diogo respected the holy grounds and petitioned the Pope about the issue. Get this, the Pope urged Diogo to continue sparing Pedro's life while recognizing Diogo's right to rule. Pedro worked for years out of the that church in an effort to retake the throne. He never succeeded. Diogo's line and the line of his aunt's would continue ruling for many centuries after.

>>2020559
HIV and Ebola is the fault of colonials desu

>>2020833
>>2020889
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I did a bit of reading today and it does seem that prior to colonisation there were Hutu and Tutsi divisions (among other groups) but it was much more of a cultural or class based system (based on pastoralism vs farming as you point out) than a racial one.

>>2019923
>Democratic
>Republic
>of the Congo

File: king-leopold-of-belgium-congo-genocide.jpg (79KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 620x350px

"I must unite the rubber trees- er... I mean slaves- er... I mean uncivilized men under one flag- er... I mean, as Christians and under no flag but with free trade for all. Actually forget I said anything, nothing is happening anyway, just trees and pygmies. Carry on everyone."

File: 6ec21f1376c6715a007427f5387458bc.jpg (149KB, 634x875px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 634x875px

>Ota Benga (c.1883 – March 20, 1916) was a Congolese man, an Mbuti pygmy

>At the Bronx Zoo, Benga had free run of the grounds before and after he was exhibited in the zoo's Monkey House.

>The inhumane treatment he was subjected to for most of his life, caused Benga to fall into a depression. He committed suicide in 1916 at the age of 32.