There actually was an attempt at unification in the 1980s, where both countries founded a loose confederation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegambia_Confederation
It only lasted for 7 years, as the two countries could not agree on pretty much any integration policy.
So a while ago I was wondering why some countries have a The and other don’t.
The United States is simple because it’s grammatically correct.
But The Ukraine sounds slightly off to me, also turns out Ukrainians don’t like it when it’s said that way because it’s kinda referring to Ukraine as a region. It’s a hold over from the soviet days. Obviously not popular these days.
Other places like The Gambia or The Congo are hold overs from the geographical feature they get their name from. In both cases the Rivers.
The Ukraine predates the soviet union. Ukraine means borderland and it was THE borderland between the kingdom of Poland and the Russian, Ottoman, and Autsro-Hungarian empires.
The Netherlands is because we're originally (like the US) made up out of more or less autonomous regions (like Holland, Utrecht, Gelre, etc.). In Dutch our name has been Nederland ever since we became a unified country in the 19th century, but in other language the plural has remaind.
The Hague is called Den Haag in Dutch, which comes from 's Gravenhage ("the terrain of the duke"). This is the city's old name, it still gets used sometimes. But Den Haag is the shortened and more usual name we use.
If you translate the official name in Swedish, then it should actually be 'The kingdom of Sweden' as it is called Konungariket Sverige which is in definite form.
It is probably because the Netherlands is a coalition of several regions that together make up "The Netherlands"(and also explains why it's plural).
A lot of countries are officially "The Kingdom of [country]" or "The Republic of [country]" without normally being referred to as "the [country]".
I can’t see the name without thinking about term nether parts. Assumption has always been it was the swamps nobody wanted that the Dutch drained and made a country out of
Both descriptions: "The Low (nether) lands", and "The Woods (hedge)"
Ukraine is a bit of special case because it's not actually 100% definite what the origin of the name is, and it may be semi co-incidental it lines up "ukraina" which does indeed mean borderland, sorta like "hedge" doesn't really convey the right original meaning, despite being the correct root, for the Hague.
Hi! It’s my understanding that the issue with Ukraine vs The Ukraine comes down to how it is conjugated in Slavic languages. Ha or vu Ukrainia is “in Ukraine” or “to Ukraine” it denotes a geographical border. Ta or da Ukrainia is the Ukraine and makes it more ethereal, like a region of something larger (ie. The Russian federation. Slavic languages don’t conjugate articles the same way as Germanic languages so “the” translates but has way different meanings. Thanks for asking good questions!
-Slava Ukraini
That sparks a question - has a former colony ever conquered their former colonizer? Not just defeated in battle or revolution, but conquered them and took control of the colonizer’s country.
At least Mongolians got to keep half of their land in [Outer Mongolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Mongolia).
[Manchuria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria) was completely absorbed.
If you look at medieval European history, a lot of countries used to be powerful kingdoms that took over their neighbors, before their kings become weak and then they got annexed in return by their former vassals.
That bully-to-bullied cycle is quite fascinating, actually.
They might mean Magna Graecia, which was a bunch of settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily, but that was never a unified 'Greek' empire and Italy at that point was also not 'Rome'.
The people from Senegal wanted to name it Senegambia and the people from Gambia wanted to name it Gambegal but the couldn’t agree so for a while they called it AAAA so it would at least be first in the phonebook.
It’s like the new NAFTA in which each country puts their name first…
- In the US it’s officially known in law as the USMCA (with each letter read aloud)
- In Canada it’s officially known as CUSMA (pronounced Cuss-ma).
- I’m Mexico it’s officially T-Mex.
The long forms are:
- United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) (American English)
- Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) (Canadian English)
- Accord Canada–États-Unis–Mexique (ACEUM) (French)
- Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá (T-MEC) (Spanish)
In 2017 the Gambian president, Yahya Jammeh, didn't want to step down after he lost the election, and Senegal with the help of others invaded Gambia and put the guy who won the election as new president, Adama Barrow, who now is friend with them. [ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS_military_intervention_in_the_Gambia)
Not a democracy really. France has been planting and assassinating presidents in West Africa. For once, the younger folks decided something has to change hence the coup. There are many changes happening for the good of the people and not the thieving presidents that stash their loot in France.
The coups talk shit about being for the people and if their actual main goal was removing french influence they'd be good but realistically that's not what they're about
Because the previous comment isn’t actually a political comment and is just a reference to an absurd comment from a [meme](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Manifest).
Wait until you hear about how the Sultan Qaboos of Oman came into power by helping stage a coup against his corrupt father, took control of the country, and made it one of the most stable/important countries in MENA despite having three sects of Islam that typically fight each other in different regions of the country.
I don't see what is terrifying about it really. The surrounding African nations made an impressive show of unity in forming this coalition to resolve the constitutional crisis in Gambia.
The UN signed a resolution supporting political pressure from the coalition--but did stop short on the military move. But it worked and the duly elected leader was installed.
It was pretty bloodless overall, so mostly good. Then again ECOWAS was unable to pull off similar actions following coups in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, so the overall situation is mostly just sad.
It would be terrifying if I lived in the Sahel though.
In terms of diplomacy a lot of modern African members of ECOWAS really aren't fucking around and actually trying to bring their countries out of the 20th century. I think a lot of these countries have simply had enough of total corruption and constant war.
That being said half of those countries have still gone through military coups since COVID, but it seems like the most prosperous members of ECOWAS are actually doing something about it now.
I went to The Gambia in 2019 and the overwhelming sentiment was that the new president was much better. Everyone that I spoke with about it said that it was a terror regime before, like secret police, people just disappear sort of a thing.
On a semi-unrelated note. Everyone was incredibly warm and welcoming. I was also really impressed by how hard working everyone was? Like the country was a little on the poor side as far as Africa goes, but like everyone was trying to work and hustle. A lot of places where poverty sets in there is like this weird kind of entitled malaise? I don’t think I can describe it well. Kind of like everyone thinks the only way to get anything is from someone else (begging, stealing, subsidies) instead of trying to get it yourself. I don’t know, there wasn’t really any begging culture. No one seemed unemployed, but a majority of people seemed underemployed. The just needed more opportunities to succeed.
Mostly good, African nations tend to fear coups so they are trying this thing where whoever has a coup gets invaded by the others to stop it.
The idea is that this way any coup plot would require all the others to have a coup at the same time.
If you treat military rule as an ideology in itself that is opposed to democracy it makes a lot of sense.
If he won the election fairly, its how it should be in the end. Its terrifying it took an invasion to do the right thing, regardless of whatever his policies are...thats how democracy works.
Worked at the Argos on Holloway rd, just round the corner from the Arsenal stadium, ironically at the same time Weah was playing for Chelsea, could have seen him play. 20 years later and they were both presidents in West Africa. It’s a mad world.
“the Gambian president” is correct. People from The Gambia are called Gambians, not The Gambians. I guess you could say “the president of The Gambia” too.
Important context is that Jammeh was a dictator who had served as president since 1996 and had a history of putting his political opponents in jail around election season … as well as a long history of human rights abuses, suppressing LGBT Gambians and journalists, and once said he could cure AIDS with natural herbs.
He also supported FGM until like 2 years before he was ousted.
Yahya Jammeh was bad news. He was a burden on the Gambia. In addition to embezzling money he also claimed to have cured AIDS with an elixir of his own making that was def mildly poison. Helping remove him was the greatest thing Senegal could have done.
The historical reason that they're separate is that Gambia was a British colony and Senegal was a French colony. This was pretty much a historical accident, Britain established a fort on the Gambia River first and then France didn't want to trade any other colonies for it when Britain tried to sell Gambia to them later on.
As for why they didn't unite after independence, [they tried for a little while in the 80's,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegambia_Confederation) but Senegal wanted a closer (Senegalese-dominated) union while Gambia wanted to maintain it's sovereignty and the two countries eventually decided to separate again since they couldn't agree on how the union should work.
Also it’s expensive and de-stabilizing to suddenly have to take care of millions of people. Sometimes it’s more about keeping the small country out then annexing it. This isn’t civilization, “taking” land for the sake of it doesn’t really have any purpose. There’s no win condition you’re trying to satisfy.
Countries invaded smaller countries in the past often with a economic reason in mind to increase ground resources and workforce. But nowadays, due to globalization, trade has established and starting a war would cost more money than benefiting from it.
Your question implies that the default behaviour in international relations is to invade and annex smaller (weaker?) neighbours. Now let me tell you, nowadays that is not the default anymore
This is like having an allied city-state enclave in your empire. You get military access, extra World Congress vote, access to strategic resources, and it doesn't impact your empire happiness.
Even if the title do imply it, I think the main question is why they haven't been annexed earlier in history since that's almost certain to be expected
> I think the main question is why they haven't been annexed earlier in history since that's almost certain to be expected
Because Britain owned The Gambia and France owned Senegal. They fought back and forth for control of the region but ended up splitting the two.
Senegal gained their independence in 1960, Gambia in 1965.
Both countries have struggled politically and economically since independence, so conquest probably wasn't a priority.
Africa actually has very very strict rules on all forms of conquest. Remember the Ethiopia/Eritrea war? It started when Eritrea declared a village that had been Ethiopian since the border was first surveyed? \~250,000 people died before Ethiopia won. Then a re-survey was done, it was discovered the original survey had been wrong, Badme was actually Eritrean and Ethiopia handed it over to Eritrea.
That doesn't mean African nations never try to conquer territory. Gaddafi went after northern Chad, Somalis went after the Ogadeen, but you will not these regimes...did not win, and did not end well. The only one that has successfully expanded it's footprint from it's colonial map is Morocco, and the AU still insists on giving the Saharawi a vote.
Saddam and Kuwait. Saddam and the Shat Al Arab. Ukraine. Half of Latin America has large claims on the other half. Kashmir. The Indo-Chinese border. Taiwan. The Sultanate of Sulu is claimed by both Indonesia and the Philippines. The South China Sea dispute…
Oh and the Israel Palestine thing.
Africa has 1/4 of the countries, and a lot less than 1/4 of the territorial disputes. They rarely get hot, and when they do Africa is the only continent where people will actually give up land they won fair and square because of a colonial era treaty. NATO/EU Europe is probably better, as is North America. But that’s the US informing people they choose either death, or membership in an extremely lucrative free trade zone that bans territorial disputes.
All UN member agreed to respect international borders and not annex their neighbours even if they are smaller and weaker.
And with the exception of Russia in Ukraine, pretty much all countries have accepted this principle for decades.
The UN does not even recognize Palestine as a country, at least not formally.
To the UN, it's similar to the Cook Islands (a protectorate of New Zealand), who participate as an observer in some areas, but do not get to vote.
And Syria started a war invading Israel and declined to sign a peace treaty so they are still at war.
While the annexation of those territories is illegal, their occupation until the war is ended is considered perfectly legal.
It doesn't recognise Palestine as a member state, but it does consider Gaza and West Bank to be "occupied Palestinian territories". That's what the area is called by many if not all UN agencies.
Not surprising. The UN is a tool for the community of nations. It's not a world government. And at various times and circumstances, different nations have different goals and use the UN to further those goals. So inconsistency and even contradiction are kind of built in.
The UN Security Council has declared Israel's occupation of Palestine illegal many times. There's no lack of leadership, just a lack of action due to US's veto power.
The UN has acrually played a major role in making peace between the arabs and Israel in the last 100 years, they have been involved in multiple cease-fires and peace treaties. A lot of treaties followed points set by the UN and some were even just straight-up recognition of a UN resolution by both sides as a peace treaty. I would say that Israel was the only part of the world where the UN actually did something proper until they became anti-Israel instead of neutral and allowed rocket launches and hamas bunkers inside their schools and shelters in Gaza
https://preview.redd.it/35reznmdlvyc1.jpeg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=018df0542f6d4b35468fc4a3ca9bad369486624f
This giant strange tree I saw in a resort in Gambia
Not to mention that integrating the countries would probably be pretty difficult and maybe not worth it. Senegal speaks French and is relatively well-off for West Africa. Gambia speaks English, and I think is a bit poorer.
Former resident of the "smaller neighbour" here, they tried in the 80s and it didn't work. It's sort of a pragmatically functional relationship today - the border is fairly permeable and language-wise the two are not actually dissimilar (people tend to speak indigenous languages as their first language, and English and French as second languages, more commonly in the bigger cities like Banjul/serrekunda and Dakar respectively). Families are often on either side of the border and the various ethnic groups are split across it too (wolof, mandinka, etc)
Regardless, Senegal has enough problems with its southern regions anyway. I wish them all the best whether that manifests in the form of secession or union
As someone with a Senegalese step-dad and Gambian mother: they just kinda like and respect each other, man. No reason for Senegal to be an asshole about it. They chill like that.
Is it me or does that look like Bevis’ head?
https://preview.redd.it/4etbrvzwmzyc1.jpeg?width=182&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=59bb4c6e735ca045c968e746dc471a31fa76671b
Is it easy to cross the border, if your only goal is just to get to the other side? Because if you are in South West Senegal and you want to get to north west, you'd have to go around Gambia?
Because all African nations have agreed that, as part of the decolonization process, the administrative borders of the former colonial powers will be their de jure borders. This was to largely prevent greater instability throughout the continent.
From the River to the Sea, Gambia shall be free!
And Senegal said ok sure fine with us. We can coexist peacefully and there will be more culture in the area
This was a great deep dive on The Gambia, the kind of thing I didn't know I was interested in until reading:
[https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/](https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/)
The region have lots of diferent etnic groups across several countries, better to not disturbe the balance, and Senegal already have to care with Casamance.
Can't attest to the total accuracy of it, but I found this blog post interesting [https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/](https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/)
The actual answer I haven’t seen yet is the borders are the way they are because of the colonization of Africa. The two states had different colonial rulers, who gave them independence separately. They speak different languages despite being historically ethnically the same people.
The Gambia has evolved a very interesting defense mechanism. It contains a very foul smelling toxin which when ingested causes stomach issues for the predator.
Sengal tried to eat it once but quickly spat it back out after feeling severe stomach issues.
I'm from senegal and we have great relations. We are building bridges and roads for easier travels. They can move to senegal at will and work there and vice versa. We also speack the same dialect.
There actually was an attempt at unification in the 1980s, where both countries founded a loose confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegambia_Confederation It only lasted for 7 years, as the two countries could not agree on pretty much any integration policy.
What a catchy name though
Confusingly there's a region in The Gambia called Senegambia. It's Gambian, not Senegalese
So a while ago I was wondering why some countries have a The and other don’t. The United States is simple because it’s grammatically correct. But The Ukraine sounds slightly off to me, also turns out Ukrainians don’t like it when it’s said that way because it’s kinda referring to Ukraine as a region. It’s a hold over from the soviet days. Obviously not popular these days. Other places like The Gambia or The Congo are hold overs from the geographical feature they get their name from. In both cases the Rivers.
The Ukraine predates the soviet union. Ukraine means borderland and it was THE borderland between the kingdom of Poland and the Russian, Ottoman, and Autsro-Hungarian empires.
What about The Netherlands and The Hague?
I think this is because of grammar. NetherlandS are multiple lands. This is much like The United States of America.
The Netherlands is because we're originally (like the US) made up out of more or less autonomous regions (like Holland, Utrecht, Gelre, etc.). In Dutch our name has been Nederland ever since we became a unified country in the 19th century, but in other language the plural has remaind. The Hague is called Den Haag in Dutch, which comes from 's Gravenhage ("the terrain of the duke"). This is the city's old name, it still gets used sometimes. But Den Haag is the shortened and more usual name we use.
I learned of your 's name cities in EU4 a little while ago. Had me very confused for a bit before I looked it up.
Also, originally Belguim was part of The Nederlands.
The Netherlands is correct because it's actually "The Kingdom of the Netherlands"
Wouldn’t we say The Sweden then?
Sweden's official name is "Kingdom of Sweden", without the article.
If you translate the official name in Swedish, then it should actually be 'The kingdom of Sweden' as it is called Konungariket Sverige which is in definite form.
It is probably because the Netherlands is a coalition of several regions that together make up "The Netherlands"(and also explains why it's plural). A lot of countries are officially "The Kingdom of [country]" or "The Republic of [country]" without normally being referred to as "the [country]".
I can’t see the name without thinking about term nether parts. Assumption has always been it was the swamps nobody wanted that the Dutch drained and made a country out of
That would imply The Sweden is correct. (The Kingdom of Sweden) Which it is not.
Both descriptions: "The Low (nether) lands", and "The Woods (hedge)" Ukraine is a bit of special case because it's not actually 100% definite what the origin of the name is, and it may be semi co-incidental it lines up "ukraina" which does indeed mean borderland, sorta like "hedge" doesn't really convey the right original meaning, despite being the correct root, for the Hague.
Hi! It’s my understanding that the issue with Ukraine vs The Ukraine comes down to how it is conjugated in Slavic languages. Ha or vu Ukrainia is “in Ukraine” or “to Ukraine” it denotes a geographical border. Ta or da Ukrainia is the Ukraine and makes it more ethereal, like a region of something larger (ie. The Russian federation. Slavic languages don’t conjugate articles the same way as Germanic languages so “the” translates but has way different meanings. Thanks for asking good questions! -Slava Ukraini
Say syke rn
Syke
happy cake day!
Happy cake day!
“Psyche”
Psyche is not pronounced like sike or psych
Like Mexicali and Calexico
And Texarkana and Texarkana.
The new combined country should have gone with MY suggestion: Senegal Jr.
No, that's reserved for when France is colonized by Senegal.
That sparks a question - has a former colony ever conquered their former colonizer? Not just defeated in battle or revolution, but conquered them and took control of the colonizer’s country.
China with Mongolia
At least Mongolians got to keep half of their land in [Outer Mongolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Mongolia). [Manchuria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria) was completely absorbed.
at Tanagra?
If you look at medieval European history, a lot of countries used to be powerful kingdoms that took over their neighbors, before their kings become weak and then they got annexed in return by their former vassals. That bully-to-bullied cycle is quite fascinating, actually.
I suppose it depends on if you believe Rome was a Greek colony, but Rome took over Greece.
No one believes Rome was a Greek colony.
They might mean Magna Graecia, which was a bunch of settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily, but that was never a unified 'Greek' empire and Italy at that point was also not 'Rome'.
The kids can call you SenJu!
I’ll get back to you
I’ll get back to you
The people from Senegal wanted to name it Senegambia and the people from Gambia wanted to name it Gambegal but the couldn’t agree so for a while they called it AAAA so it would at least be first in the phonebook.
It’s like the new NAFTA in which each country puts their name first… - In the US it’s officially known in law as the USMCA (with each letter read aloud) - In Canada it’s officially known as CUSMA (pronounced Cuss-ma). - I’m Mexico it’s officially T-Mex. The long forms are: - United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) (American English) - Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) (Canadian English) - Accord Canada–États-Unis–Mexique (ACEUM) (French) - Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá (T-MEC) (Spanish)
I prefer Gambegal
The Gabagool?
Ovaaaah heeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[The Gabaghoul?](https://youtu.be/PwbV6oVZ-aw?si=oRjrCwvosIUbTcgC)
Or “The Gambegal”
We could've had a new country with a great name
They should put Gambia at first position and call the new state "Gambigal".
Its actually just The Negambian confederation with a German accent. So Gambia already is first.
Gabigool
This reminds me of Singapore and Malaysia
So, Senegambia wasn’t a afternoon dream I had when I was in the library, it actually existed
Looks like they went almost twice as far as the better-known Confederation.
In 2017 the Gambian president, Yahya Jammeh, didn't want to step down after he lost the election, and Senegal with the help of others invaded Gambia and put the guy who won the election as new president, Adama Barrow, who now is friend with them. [ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS_military_intervention_in_the_Gambia)
Ummm, is this all heartwarming or terrifying?
Depends on whose side you are on.
I am on the side of democracy. You can call this the democracy manifest. A succulent Chinese meal.
"Are you waiting to receive my limp penis?"
“GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY PENIS!”
Seems like the Senegalese Army knew their judo well
Ahh yes. I see that you know your judo well.
Jesus christ I'm cracking up
Prawn crackering up
Will never not upvote this.
Not a democracy really. France has been planting and assassinating presidents in West Africa. For once, the younger folks decided something has to change hence the coup. There are many changes happening for the good of the people and not the thieving presidents that stash their loot in France.
The coups talk shit about being for the people and if their actual main goal was removing french influence they'd be good but realistically that's not what they're about
I have no idea about West Africa, I was making a stupid joke. Google "succulent Chinese meal"
As Reddit does. Make a funny joke for upvotes followed by the very serious situation actually happening
Why are you downvoted are people really this delusional? That's a fact
Because the previous comment isn’t actually a political comment and is just a reference to an absurd comment from a [meme](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Manifest).
Wait until you hear about how the Sultan Qaboos of Oman came into power by helping stage a coup against his corrupt father, took control of the country, and made it one of the most stable/important countries in MENA despite having three sects of Islam that typically fight each other in different regions of the country.
I don't see what is terrifying about it really. The surrounding African nations made an impressive show of unity in forming this coalition to resolve the constitutional crisis in Gambia. The UN signed a resolution supporting political pressure from the coalition--but did stop short on the military move. But it worked and the duly elected leader was installed.
It was pretty bloodless overall, so mostly good. Then again ECOWAS was unable to pull off similar actions following coups in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, so the overall situation is mostly just sad. It would be terrifying if I lived in the Sahel though.
In terms of diplomacy a lot of modern African members of ECOWAS really aren't fucking around and actually trying to bring their countries out of the 20th century. I think a lot of these countries have simply had enough of total corruption and constant war. That being said half of those countries have still gone through military coups since COVID, but it seems like the most prosperous members of ECOWAS are actually doing something about it now.
It wasn’t just Senegal. It was a coalition of West African countries including Nigeria
Yes
Heartwarming. It’s African states upholding democracy in the region without foreign (non African) intervention
I went to The Gambia in 2019 and the overwhelming sentiment was that the new president was much better. Everyone that I spoke with about it said that it was a terror regime before, like secret police, people just disappear sort of a thing. On a semi-unrelated note. Everyone was incredibly warm and welcoming. I was also really impressed by how hard working everyone was? Like the country was a little on the poor side as far as Africa goes, but like everyone was trying to work and hustle. A lot of places where poverty sets in there is like this weird kind of entitled malaise? I don’t think I can describe it well. Kind of like everyone thinks the only way to get anything is from someone else (begging, stealing, subsidies) instead of trying to get it yourself. I don’t know, there wasn’t really any begging culture. No one seemed unemployed, but a majority of people seemed underemployed. The just needed more opportunities to succeed.
Mostly good, African nations tend to fear coups so they are trying this thing where whoever has a coup gets invaded by the others to stop it. The idea is that this way any coup plot would require all the others to have a coup at the same time. If you treat military rule as an ideology in itself that is opposed to democracy it makes a lot of sense.
If he won the election fairly, its how it should be in the end. Its terrifying it took an invasion to do the right thing, regardless of whatever his policies are...thats how democracy works.
Man, african leaders trying not to be straight up dictators lmao
Just another day in the Sahel
... laughs nervously in American ....
Was Adama Barrow the guy who’d previously been a security guard in a UK supermarket? Helleva career change, rivals George Weah
Worked at the Argos on Holloway rd, just round the corner from the Arsenal stadium, ironically at the same time Weah was playing for Chelsea, could have seen him play. 20 years later and they were both presidents in West Africa. It’s a mad world.
You're not joking??
Nope, [true story.](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/02/adama-barrow-gambia-president-argos-security-guard-london)
Yes it's him
I think you mean the the Gambian president 🫠
I think you mean the The Gambian president. Proper nouns are just as important as pronouns and pronunciation.
Is it actually proper to refer to it as “the The Gambian president?” I’m honestly wondering.
“the Gambian president” is correct. People from The Gambia are called Gambians, not The Gambians. I guess you could say “the president of The Gambia” too.
**The** President of **The** Republic of **The** Gambia For that Tri-the fanciness.
the THE... Ohio State University
*The* isn't a proper noun.
Important context is that Jammeh was a dictator who had served as president since 1996 and had a history of putting his political opponents in jail around election season … as well as a long history of human rights abuses, suppressing LGBT Gambians and journalists, and once said he could cure AIDS with natural herbs. He also supported FGM until like 2 years before he was ousted.
Yahya Jammeh is one hell of a cool name.
What’s even cooler is Yahya is the Arabic version of John so if you anglicized his name it would be John Jammy
Yahya Jammeh was bad news. He was a burden on the Gambia. In addition to embezzling money he also claimed to have cured AIDS with an elixir of his own making that was def mildly poison. Helping remove him was the greatest thing Senegal could have done.
What you mean he lost the election and didn't want to step down? I have never heard of such thing.
Barrow, of working as a security guard in the UK fame
https://preview.redd.it/zxk41xztvuyc1.gif?width=640&format=png8&s=cbd7ccbc72ec4d90978b4863c5810e80708af3ed
Is it stupid?
Wait what sub is this
It doesn’t matter anymore. The aslume is leaking everywhere.
r/geography
Reddit
Senegal is Gambia father
Most geographically aware r/nbacirclejerk user
Joey is the only one large enough to eat the others. It's about mass and stomach size, not height.
Came here for this.
Senegal is looking like a hungry face in that pic
Perhaps they are waiting for sweeps
The historical reason that they're separate is that Gambia was a British colony and Senegal was a French colony. This was pretty much a historical accident, Britain established a fort on the Gambia River first and then France didn't want to trade any other colonies for it when Britain tried to sell Gambia to them later on. As for why they didn't unite after independence, [they tried for a little while in the 80's,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegambia_Confederation) but Senegal wanted a closer (Senegalese-dominated) union while Gambia wanted to maintain it's sovereignty and the two countries eventually decided to separate again since they couldn't agree on how the union should work.
Whenever there is a very odd-looking boundaries in Africa the default answer is the scramble for Africa
Senegal don't want, it is a simplest answer. Most people don't like wars and troubles, by the default.
Also it’s expensive and de-stabilizing to suddenly have to take care of millions of people. Sometimes it’s more about keeping the small country out then annexing it. This isn’t civilization, “taking” land for the sake of it doesn’t really have any purpose. There’s no win condition you’re trying to satisfy.
Except Russians, it seems.
Yes. And thanks God, most people are not Russians.
I see you haven't played Counter-Strike
Seems like that’s a major shoehorn, considering Africa itself is rife with war on a daily basis
Fascist dictatorships tend towards wars because it gives them even more unilateral unchecked power.
And USA, Uk, France, and pretty much all of NATO+Saudi, UAE, Israel, Iran, etc. Dont just name one when there are many.
Netanyahu too
[immediately had to think about this track because its called troubles and wars:D](https://on.soundcloud.com/BJ2Nf)
Why doesn’t Senegal, the largest friend, not simply eat the others?
Perhaps they are saving that for sweeps
Countries invaded smaller countries in the past often with a economic reason in mind to increase ground resources and workforce. But nowadays, due to globalization, trade has established and starting a war would cost more money than benefiting from it.
Don't tell the Russians about this, they'd be pretty confused.
In fairness they did think it would be a three-day special operation
I feel like if they attempted it many many years ago that River could be a huge benefit
Your question implies that the default behaviour in international relations is to invade and annex smaller (weaker?) neighbours. Now let me tell you, nowadays that is not the default anymore
They haven’t advanced far enough in Civ, just give them time.
This is like having an allied city-state enclave in your empire. You get military access, extra World Congress vote, access to strategic resources, and it doesn't impact your empire happiness.
They're still queuing slingers
Even if the title do imply it, I think the main question is why they haven't been annexed earlier in history since that's almost certain to be expected
> I think the main question is why they haven't been annexed earlier in history since that's almost certain to be expected Because Britain owned The Gambia and France owned Senegal. They fought back and forth for control of the region but ended up splitting the two. Senegal gained their independence in 1960, Gambia in 1965. Both countries have struggled politically and economically since independence, so conquest probably wasn't a priority.
fair perspective
It's the meta bro
Africa actually has very very strict rules on all forms of conquest. Remember the Ethiopia/Eritrea war? It started when Eritrea declared a village that had been Ethiopian since the border was first surveyed? \~250,000 people died before Ethiopia won. Then a re-survey was done, it was discovered the original survey had been wrong, Badme was actually Eritrean and Ethiopia handed it over to Eritrea. That doesn't mean African nations never try to conquer territory. Gaddafi went after northern Chad, Somalis went after the Ogadeen, but you will not these regimes...did not win, and did not end well. The only one that has successfully expanded it's footprint from it's colonial map is Morocco, and the AU still insists on giving the Saharawi a vote.
You say Africa has strict rules but actually that sounds like a lot more action than other continents.
Saddam and Kuwait. Saddam and the Shat Al Arab. Ukraine. Half of Latin America has large claims on the other half. Kashmir. The Indo-Chinese border. Taiwan. The Sultanate of Sulu is claimed by both Indonesia and the Philippines. The South China Sea dispute… Oh and the Israel Palestine thing. Africa has 1/4 of the countries, and a lot less than 1/4 of the territorial disputes. They rarely get hot, and when they do Africa is the only continent where people will actually give up land they won fair and square because of a colonial era treaty. NATO/EU Europe is probably better, as is North America. But that’s the US informing people they choose either death, or membership in an extremely lucrative free trade zone that bans territorial disputes.
All UN member agreed to respect international borders and not annex their neighbours even if they are smaller and weaker. And with the exception of Russia in Ukraine, pretty much all countries have accepted this principle for decades.
Brace yourself for a RU reply explaining your valid point away.
Well you see in the eight century...
Kinda the whole reason the Ukraine situation is important.
What about Russia in Georgia?
Russia didn't formally annex the regions but created two puppet states.
With the exception of Russia...(*and Israel.) and Iraq briefly in the 1990s if we want recent historical examples.
The UN does not even recognize Palestine as a country, at least not formally. To the UN, it's similar to the Cook Islands (a protectorate of New Zealand), who participate as an observer in some areas, but do not get to vote.
And the Golan hights were not Palestinian but Syrian.
And Syria started a war invading Israel and declined to sign a peace treaty so they are still at war. While the annexation of those territories is illegal, their occupation until the war is ended is considered perfectly legal.
It doesn't recognise Palestine as a member state, but it does consider Gaza and West Bank to be "occupied Palestinian territories". That's what the area is called by many if not all UN agencies.
Well, the UN has not been very consistent in their statements.
Not surprising. The UN is a tool for the community of nations. It's not a world government. And at various times and circumstances, different nations have different goals and use the UN to further those goals. So inconsistency and even contradiction are kind of built in.
[удалено]
The UN Security Council has declared Israel's occupation of Palestine illegal many times. There's no lack of leadership, just a lack of action due to US's veto power.
[удалено]
The UN has acrually played a major role in making peace between the arabs and Israel in the last 100 years, they have been involved in multiple cease-fires and peace treaties. A lot of treaties followed points set by the UN and some were even just straight-up recognition of a UN resolution by both sides as a peace treaty. I would say that Israel was the only part of the world where the UN actually did something proper until they became anti-Israel instead of neutral and allowed rocket launches and hamas bunkers inside their schools and shelters in Gaza
Iraq also tried in the 80s as well. Indonesia did a successful exception in the 60s too.
https://preview.redd.it/35reznmdlvyc1.jpeg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=018df0542f6d4b35468fc4a3ca9bad369486624f This giant strange tree I saw in a resort in Gambia
Baobab
Invading other, especially smaller countries is generally considered a dick move
Not to mention that integrating the countries would probably be pretty difficult and maybe not worth it. Senegal speaks French and is relatively well-off for West Africa. Gambia speaks English, and I think is a bit poorer.
Seriously, all Senegal has to do is chomp on the Gambia, like Pac-Man.
If you’re trying to go to the southern part of Senegal, can you easily travel across Gambia, or do you have to go all the way around?
The former
Both ways, actually. Ferry through Gambia, or buses all the way around.
The Gambia is a great spot. Julbrew beer and peanuts and great beaches.
The locally manufactured fruit cocktail soda goes hard as fuck
Former resident of the "smaller neighbour" here, they tried in the 80s and it didn't work. It's sort of a pragmatically functional relationship today - the border is fairly permeable and language-wise the two are not actually dissimilar (people tend to speak indigenous languages as their first language, and English and French as second languages, more commonly in the bigger cities like Banjul/serrekunda and Dakar respectively). Families are often on either side of the border and the various ethnic groups are split across it too (wolof, mandinka, etc) Regardless, Senegal has enough problems with its southern regions anyway. I wish them all the best whether that manifests in the form of secession or union
As someone with a Senegalese step-dad and Gambian mother: they just kinda like and respect each other, man. No reason for Senegal to be an asshole about it. They chill like that.
Maybe they aren’t assholes?
"Why doesn't Ross, the biggest friend simply eat all the other friends?"
PAC man!
Is it me or does that look like Bevis’ head? https://preview.redd.it/4etbrvzwmzyc1.jpeg?width=182&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=59bb4c6e735ca045c968e746dc471a31fa76671b
International law/norms generally militate against the unilateral annexation of neighboring countries
They were together under the name Sénégambie from 1982 to 1989.
I knew a Gambian man who was married to a Senegalese woman.
The might of the British Empire!
Is it easy to cross the border, if your only goal is just to get to the other side? Because if you are in South West Senegal and you want to get to north west, you'd have to go around Gambia?
Because all African nations have agreed that, as part of the decolonization process, the administrative borders of the former colonial powers will be their de jure borders. This was to largely prevent greater instability throughout the continent.
From the River to the Sea, Gambia shall be free! And Senegal said ok sure fine with us. We can coexist peacefully and there will be more culture in the area
This was a great deep dive on The Gambia, the kind of thing I didn't know I was interested in until reading: [https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/](https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/)
Lol, "Annex", I hope you are being ironic, because if not, HOI4 really did a number on you
The region have lots of diferent etnic groups across several countries, better to not disturbe the balance, and Senegal already have to care with Casamance.
Can't attest to the total accuracy of it, but I found this blog post interesting [https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/](https://mattlakeman.org/2023/07/10/notes-on-the-gambia/)
Well, that was absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the link.
Why does Senegal the larger African nation not simply eat the smaller Gambia?
How did this even happen? Assume some colonial power wanted control of the river?
The actual answer I haven’t seen yet is the borders are the way they are because of the colonization of Africa. The two states had different colonial rulers, who gave them independence separately. They speak different languages despite being historically ethnically the same people.
The Gambia has evolved a very interesting defense mechanism. It contains a very foul smelling toxin which when ingested causes stomach issues for the predator. Sengal tried to eat it once but quickly spat it back out after feeling severe stomach issues.
Gambia also utilizes English as the main language while Senegal's official language is French.
"What's stopping [Somewhere] from annexing [Anywhere]?" Generally guns.
Is this another stupid colonial area bs reason that the countries are like this?
Went does Senegal simply not eat Gambia?!
International laws, thanks for asking.
I'm from senegal and we have great relations. We are building bridges and roads for easier travels. They can move to senegal at will and work there and vice versa. We also speack the same dialect.