> you would expect there to be a bit more of a functional relationship
Why?
Between 1904 and 1908, German troops waged a punitive campaign against the Herero and Nama which escalated into the first genocide of the 20th century.
Addendum: In response to rapid up and downvoting with no comment as to why I'll happily repeat the question .. why should we expect good relations between former European colonies and their European colonisers?
Germany had a colony in PNG in the early 1900s, that's long since changed hands. Belgium had a horrorshow occupation of the Congo region under Leopold that served no good end. Idi Amin, a brutal dictator, expelled Europeans and the Indian civil servants brought in by the British to oversee colonial works in Uganada.
Yes, sometimes there are good relations between former colonies and the countries that took them over .. but it doesn't always follow.
I think to an extent the violence the Europeans inflicted weren't that much different that the violence neighboring groups did. For much of history you had local empires that exploited and oppressed tribal and ethnic groups.
But it's interesting I saw a survey that showed people in former colonies often have a better opinion of the former colonizing county than they do of non.
There's an argument made that "our" (western) history of civil conflict in Africa and elsewhere is the only | principle written english history of such neighbouring violence and largely omits the actions of European actors in playing "divide and conquer" as part of the colonial playbook.
The role of France in the Rwandan Genocide was underplayed at the time and still relatively undiscussed.
The role of the US and France in extracting very high grade uranium from the Congo during the Cold War was almost unreported until well after and surrounded by a halo of funded conflict and destabilising warlords that prevented any local governance arising to challenge the relocation of valuable resources.
The British Kenyan Colony, now dissolved, was defended from the Mau Mau uprising against the British by stoking neighbouring conflicts and arming at below cost groups that would act in the interest of Britain.
A consistent story in colonies is that the violence Colonisers directly inflicted was very often the least part of the violence they initiated in a delibrate strategy of destabilisation.
Why?
Addendum: In response to rapid up and downvoting with no comment as to why I'll happily repeat the question .. why should we expect good relations between former European colonies and their European colonisers?Germany had a colony in PNG in the early 1900s, that's long since changed hands. Belgium had a horrorshow occupation of the Congo region under Leopold that served no good end. Idi Amin, a brutal dictator, expelled Europeans and the Indian civil servants brought in by the British to oversee colonial works in Uganada.
Yes, sometimes there are good relations between former colonies and the countries that took them over .. but it doesn't always follow.