A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
"It has been dubbed Britain's 'most woke' roundabout because drivers must give priority to pedestrians, then cyclists, and then other cars and lorries before continuing on themselves. Locals have pointed out the priority for cyclists and pedestrians is unnecessary as only cars and lorries regularly use the Boundary Way route."
As you say, Algeria sat on natural resources. It also had a "better" experience of empire than Korea, which was absolutely brutalized by Nazi-adjacent Japanese, leaving it (IIRC) the 2nd poorest country in the whole world. Korea has no natural resources, as doesn't Japan, possibly the world's least colonized country. The different trajectories of these three countries suggests very clearly to me that degree of empire-suffering - at the hands of "white" people or otherwise - is not the determinant factor in human development. Nor are material resources. It is something else. But anyway, none of this is falsifiable, neither of us is going to convince the other and nobody else is reading, so let's call it a day there.
It's almost as if the nation of Algeria was specifically colonized for those natural resources, and people have continued to fight over those natural resources, because they have always been attempting to extract those natural resources.
Look into the railroad structure of Sierra Leone. They don't connect the people. They connect the mines to the ocean.
Those natural resources are the exact reason why these nations haven't been able to recover. There are incentives in place to stop them from flourishing. They don't have time to stabilize because there is a pot of gold sitting on the table, and everyone wants it. This is literally why Taiwan still hasn't achieved sovereignty, and why the Middle East is constantly awash in a river of blood.
Also, Japan? Really? The literal former empire? The former empire that also flourished in the aftermath of WW2 because it fell under the umbrella of the American military? Because of its incredible strategic importance in the region? Literally the exact same situation as South Korea?
Seriously, these aren't good comparisons. At all. Claiming that Algeria suffers because it wants to be a victim - and then justifying that stance by comparing it to Japan and South Korea is so fundamentally wrong that it's genuinely fucked up to say these things. The shit you say is falsifiable, you just don't want to listen.
These nations uniquely benefitted from the influence of a white empire because they weren't plundered for natural resources, they were reinforced as a wall against the Red Scare.
So please define for me - exactly - what you think that something else is.
Just popping in to say that others are reading and I found your exchange interesting. Have a good day!
It was all worth it, then. Thanks.