Actually, what those African nations need is a tiny enclave, a special economic zone, that has the rule of law and is kept stable at all costs where western nations can invest as much as they please, while leaving the rest of the country alone so that the rest of the country can catch up to the standard of living of that enclave, without western influence.

Can you give examples of where this has been tried before. Also, this sounds like how we were colonized the first time. Giving enclaves to the French and the British that became staging posts for full colonization

I'm a bit late, but I suspect the poster is referring to a theoretical city type called a charter city[1], much pushed by the economist Paul Romer.

None have been built, although both Madagascar and Honduras briefly considered the idea. The theory is presumably inspired by Hong Kong, but obviously Hong Kong wasn't set up with any such purpose.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop...

Well, if you see any pasty Englishmen with pith helmets and Martini-Henries show up at the dock, just turn them away. Britain's power projection isn't what it once was.

Sounds like he's describing the Chinese model of development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_economic_zones_of_Chin...

I think Hong Kong is a pretty good example.

> exploitation by industrialized nations

We hear a lot about how China invests billions in Africa building highways and such in order to have influence. I have a conspiracy theory based on stories I heard. It would be nice to know if is true or not. What Americans don't realize is that the Gambino crime family didn't just dissolve, they went to Africa, and they bought rights to natural resources such as coal. They have since the early 2000s become the brokers between natural resources in Africa and 3rd party buyers around the world and their business is violence.

You do realise Africa is massive and that a family of white, American-Italians wouldn't have much chance causing influence (even with violence) in certain African countries? Not to forget the difference in languages across those countries.

So my question is: why do you think the Gambino family moved there and what evidence do you have for your claims?

If I had evidence I sure wouldn't post it from an account with potentially identifiable information. Let's say a New York Times investigative reporter for curiosity did a piece on where the associates of the Gambino family are today, don't be surprised if some of them own legitimate businesses mining and shipping natural resources from Africa. There are lists of associates and they have legitimate businesses that pay taxes. There really aren't secrets here. The activity is above board. So what if they are bribing people in Africa? The FBI doesn't care. The CIA doesn't care. Also, I'm careful about saying 'white, American-Italians' because there are likely dark complexion Sicilian Italians involved too. They are connected to North Africa, a hop skip and a jump away, however, the stories I've heard concern East and Central Africa.

King Leopold of Belgium and 200 white advisors ruled all of the African Congo with a mostly black army that they assembled.

I can't find anything about the Gambino family having assets in Africa.

Great point, though I suspect being a king and having a whole country and army support your colonisation of a country is outside the power of most people.

Edit: I get your point now that the king paid locals to help cause "crimes against humanity" ... I'd say given modern media practices that a mafia don doing something similar would be most difficult.

This thread reminds me of the Netflix TV show Lillyhammer on a smaller scale.

>the king paid locals to help cause "crimes against humanity"

That's actually not true. King Leopold forbade his soldiers from using indigenous fighting and torture practices, but some divisions with black commanders continued the practice against the king's orders. Leopold was criticized in the Belgian press for allowing black officers to command as those atrocities were viewed as a foreseeable outcome of such policy.

> They have since the early 2000s become the brokers between natural resources in Africa

Africa is a big place.

Where exactly in Africa? If you have some sources, this sounds like an interesting read.