Hope for Africa?

[Markxxx]

Just finished watching a show on PBS about how African Nations have declined since the colonial days...

Typical stuff, over population, no one now produces enough food to feed itself, and even once industrialized South Africa is going the way of third world...

Why does Africa not seem to have any hope for sucess?

[AWB]

This might be a Great Debates topic, but here's my $0.02:

Part of their downfall was Western interference.

In Western society, diseases were cured one-by-one, slowly lowering the death rate, especially among infants. With a slight time lag, birth rates also declined. So Western countries populations didn't explode and strain their resources.

But for Third World countries including African ones, we gave them medicines to cure diseases which had plagued them for centuries in a few years, but their birth rates remained at their historical high. Their populations exploded, taxed their resources, causing social unrest.

------------------
Wrong thinking is punished, right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded. You'll find it an effective combination.

[Rhythmdvl]

I agree with AWB. This could be a great GD topic - not so much as to what the causes are, but which causes have the most influence. I suspect, though, that that the relative influence of various causes will differ from nation to nation. Here then, are my .02 cents…

We (by we, I mean the western colonial powers) carved up Africa pretty much to our liking, not giving concern to indigenous historical perspective. This is somewhat tantamount to drawing an arbitrary line around a group of Hatfields and McCoys and telling them 'you are now a nation - get along!' Now do that with tens of nations (though I gather that 'nation-state' is a western concept - better, I think, to call them clans) not necessarily keeping clans whole within a particular nation-state, set up some western backed rulers to get them going, play around with their countries during the cold war, and poof! You have a mess.

While this is not necessarily in and of itself the reason for the nations never ascending to the first world's economic status, it went a long way towards keeping them down. Many of the ongoing civil wars that have plagued these countries if not a direct result of such random nation building, have been terribly perpetuated by said effects. Post-colonialism has led to the turmoil in Indonesia, Sudan, Burundi, Zimbabwe…… Maybe not the main cause of all of their problems, but up there.

Thanks for listening!




------------------
Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right…

[chique]

Please note one more thing on this subject.....

During the Cold War the West (read: the US) spent billions of $$ propping up mostly inept and corrupt dictators in the name of anti-communism. Mobutu Sese Seko, former leader of the former Zaire, took in hundreds of millions during his tenure as dictator simply because he professed to be pro-West (and also because the West needed a friendly hopping-off point to support anti-communist rebels in neighboring Angola).

Once the Iron Curtain fell the money stopped, or at least slowed to a trickle. With little home-grown industry/economic know-how (no need to develop them as money is coming in from other sources) much of Africa has been left in the lurch.

Also, there is not much interest in solving Africa's myriad problems. When Yugoslavia started cutting its own throat the European community stepped in to at least TRY to do something. When Rwanda blew up the only people who seemed to be doing anything, IMHO, were reporters and, later, aid workers.

No entirely true.

The US Army DID send medical personnel stationed in Europe at the time. I will grant you that their 30 or 60 day mission was like putting a bandaid on an amputated leg, but some relief was was sent.

------------------
Sue from El Paso
Siamese Attack Puppet - Texas

Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.

[chique]

As a vet I tend to pay attention to military missions and am aware that the US tends to send some kind of MilMed types to places in need.

The point I was trying to make is that it seems the US is somewhat - quite a bit? - racist in it's foreign policy. I mean.........look, I'm a white chick, but for the US to say "Never Again" and then let Sudan get away with slavery is a bit hypocritical.

Indonesia/East Timor is a sore spot with me. Again, hundreds of millions in aid - most of it military aid - to an inhumane dictator who invaded a state not his own. When that state blew up the US stood by and watched and SUPPORTED Suharto. What gall. Internal matter my ass - the US helped CREATE the internal matter.

Same in (the former) Zaire: millions in aid to an inhumane dictator, then stand by and watch it blow up.

Never mind CIA-sponsored events in Nicaragua, Angola............

I by no means mean to lessen the accomplishments of people who were sent far away from friends and families to assist those affected by violence in the Lake Region, but the fact remains that if the misguided US/Western involvement in Africa and other 3rd World areas had been handled in a better, there would have been no need for MilMed to even go to that area.

[Yeah]

1. A comment in response to those who identify the U.S. and "Western" powers as most responsible for current third world problems: I lived in Zaire for three years under Mobutu and in Indonesia for three years, one and a half of which was under Soeharto. Based on speaking with Zairois and Indonesians and reading several scholarly studies of U.S. involvement, covert and overt, in Zaire and Indonesia, I think
you overestimate the actual influence of the United States and other "Western" powers on Mobutu, on Soeharto, and on the people of Zaire and Indonesia.

2. On the reasons for some of the problems that some African countries are now experiencing: Don't forget the potential adverse impact of imported technology on cultures that have not had time to adapt to it. For example, the introduction of modern firearms in a culture where low-level tribal warfare is a way of life is a disaster. Among some pastoral societies, for example, cattle raids are a normal part of life. This works out OK when the weapons used are clubs and spears and bows and arrows so that relatively few people are killed. But such raids are devestating when less lethal, traditional weapons are replaced, relatively suddenly, by modern firearms as has been the case in some parts of Africa. In "Western" countries, this particular problem was avoided because the slow evolution of weaponry was concurrent with a cultural evolution. Cattle raids by rival clans became pretty much obsolete in "Western" countries before guns were invented.

3. There are a lot more reasons for the troubles now faced by many African countries but don't just look at the basket-case countries. Some African countries are doing OK such as Ghana and Botswana. I think that to hope to understand what has "gone wrong" you need to spend as much time looking at what has gone right as looking at what has gone wrong.

[WhiteNight]

I'd agree with Rythmdvl re the carving up of the area into arbitrary countries without regard for racial hatred (probably because to whites, black is black, like a lot of whites don't see differences between chinese and other asian races (which really annoys those people, especially the racist ones.))

Another problem, the largest imho, is that these areas were given a government, as in, the strongest potential leader was given a lot of guns and the 'authority' to use them.

Europe had a higher (once again, imho) technological level before the governments we have now came into place, allowing more mixing of blood. The English might have a snob thing against the French and vice versa, but rarely were there racially motivated blood feuds... in fact most royalty in both countries is probably half and half. Makes it hard to promote racial hatred.

This didn't happen in Africa (much) before the semi modernization. If a warring tribe was on the other side of a mountain range battles would be rare (or rarely taken all the way to either side's actual living areas). Allow much faster transportation and you allow these battles to be continued where they would have been impossible before. (Hard to have all-out war when you need to work 10 months of the year in a harsh environment just to break even.)

So, allowing an area with strong clan/race ties and many blood feuds access to weapons of mass destruction is farily obviously a bad thing.

I don't think 'we' are any more inherently able to handle war, or means of war, but the governments changed as our weapons changed (guns, crossbows, etc, helped weaken the monarchy) such that our political situation has been developed to deal with these issues.

To take a development from today, like 'unbreakable' public-key encryption and drop it in the 1940s would have seriously changed the political climate and perhaps destabilized the system. But to have encryption grow steadily stronger, and more useful, allows government to adjust slowly.

Similarly, giving a caveman a gun would destabilize his system. He could kill the current clan leader (or hold his power against any attackers) and provide for a much larger number of subjects than with period weapons. But the social structure of the day wouldn't have been developed to support the large numbers of people in such close proximity, nor would there be farming technology to sustain them after the animals were hunted out.

If a society doesn't develop along with its technology, I would say that social unstability is not just understandable, but likely.

I'll agree with Sandyr that 'we' help white people more than brown or black people, but I suggest that along with some latent racist feelings (especially in the US, where slavery was more prevalent) there is just the issue that people help their own. If more people (in power) were from Africa, especially the warring parts, we'd probably have stepped in. Many powerful citizens have ties to Yugoslavia, so it's where they'll direct their attention. Otherwise, it's easier for people to 'leave well enough alone'.

[C K Dexter Haven]

If there were a single simple answer, there would be a single (although not necessarily solution.) However, I have to say, the biggest problem is the poverty... poverty of depths unimaginable to Westerners.

I have spent time in Nigeria, and I agree with Yeah. The comparison to Indonesia is apt: the problems are not unique to Africa, they are found in most undeveloped nations. Africa just has a very high proportion of such.

A large part of Nigeria's problem (like Indonesia's) is oil. The large oil companies came in and gave huge amounts of money to the government ... But the government is corrupt, and the money went into the pockets of the dictator and his cronies, and none of the money went into building roads, improving facilities, or superstructure. Then the oil companies disrupt village life in the areas where they are drilling, so that villagers come into the big city looking for work, but there is no work, no housing, no medical facilities, etc. (I exaggerate somewhat for emphasis.)

Add to that the comments of others. Nigeria is an arbitrary division, that includes several tribes with different languages and some ancient hostilities. English, in fact, is the language that held them together.

I was in the lobby of one major company, and I swear the bulletin board hadn't been changed since the British left in the 1960s.

I encountered bureaucrats and officials who had their hands out -- dash or small monetary bribes are a part of everyday life. I also met with people who are very intelligent, friendly, very lovely professionals.

Kenya is a different story altogether.

[chique]

This has turned into a rather intriguing topic………..

I hope none of the participants in this thread are trying to start a war (i.e., I’m right, you’re wrong) as, as far as I can see, all answers so far are valid.

Yeah: When I spoke of US/Western involvement I was by no means trying to say it was the ultimate reason. I do believe, however, that this involvement did not help much, if at all. Concerning Indonesia in particular, it’s geographical position is extraordinarily important in the US’s military strategy in Asia, particularly after the loss of Subic and other military installations in the Philippines. While I can’t cite any particular articles I’ve read, this was one of the reasons that the US military leaders did not press for intervention in East Timor (of course, a military stretched thin and other minutiae also contributed).

Also: Weapons technology is something I’ve never thought/heard of – thanks for the insight, as it also explains stories in “News of the Weird” about a couple of drunk guys in Angola, Cambodia, etc., playing chicken with land mines :)

CKDextHavn: Thanks for bringing up Western corporate involvement. In my previous post the US/Western involvement meant to imply corporate as well as government involvement. Also, you brought up something that I probably should have mentioned but didn’t: (um, this next thing is supposed to be a quote but don't know how to do those)


I was in the lobby of one major
ompany, and I swear the bulletin board
hadn't been changed since the British
left in the 1960s.


Many African countries were simply cut loose in the 60s and 70s. Colonial powers left what little infrastructure there was and bailed, leaving buildings and trappings but little governmental know-how.

And, of course, bribery is not unknown in the good ol’ U S of A, but at least (I know, am opening myself up to sarcastic slams, here) we have some enforced/enforceable laws to deal with bribery and corruption.

Also, CKDextHavn – please, do tell about Kenya :)

[Markxxx]

What about the population angle. According to my almanac Africa was equal to North America in Population in 1955. Now it is almost 800 million. Only Asia is bigger.

What if any countries show hope. I mean how come Zimbabwe is now rated so low after pre colonial Rhodesia was OK. Now even South Africa is slipping rapidly.

Botswana is an example but it really isn't much of a success by world standards. Does anyone see a country that could approch the upcoming economies like Thailand, Malaysia, etc.

[Erik Raven]

Originally posted by sandyr:
During the Cold War the West (read: the US) spent billions of $$ propping up mostly inept and corrupt dictators in the name of anti-communism.

Whoa, let's be a little balanced here! There are many examples of the East doing bad things that directly led to slaughter of innocents. For example, Soviet and Cuban support of Mengistu in Ethiopia starting in 1976, while at the same time Ford and Carter had cut off foreign aid to the murderous regime because of the slaughter of thousands of innocents.

Someone mentioned Angola: sorry, the large part of that war rests on South African hands. The US and Zaire were for the most part out of it by the time South Africa's invasions began in 1975.

I think it's far fairer to say that modern states have caused a seemingly unending list of problems, whether they be from the East, West, or South.

[DougC]

- - - I have been told by someone who knows that Africans (real, backcountry African people, not foreign blacks) have historically led short lives in a harsh environment. This has been the circumstances long before Europeans came and started taking slaves, although that didn't help. He said (paraphrasing) "they are much more likely to lie, cheat and steal - whatever they need to do to survive - cooperation has never really worked well for them, and they know it". He left S Africa for the US because he figured (as did a lot of other educated, professional whites did) that the country was going to go down the toilet shortly with "local" blacks in charge. He said that blacks raised in Europe or the US are significantly different; if foreign blacks would have been put in charge of the government, by his estimate many more whites would have stayed put to see how things turned out. What happened was that many government offices had black officials appointed to them who flat-out did not know what they were supposed to be doing. He pointed out that the massive corruption of other African governments was something that S. Africa had largely managed to avoid; it wasn't an entirely spotless record, but compared to what else was available locally it was the better deal. - MC

[Cardinal]

There's an interesting book about this kind of thing called "Out of America," by an American black journalist who was stationed in Kenya. Very, very interesting reading on the subject.

[Cardinal]

Link to said book on Amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156005832/o/qid=950407917/sr=8-1/103-3511215-2953429

[Kyla]

What if any countries show hope. I mean how come Zimbabwe is now rated so low after pre colonial Rhodesia was OK. Now even South Africa is slipping rapidly.

Many problems in both countries have their roots in the end of apartheid. Apartheid ended in Zimbabwe (the former Rhodesia) 20 years ago, so it's a little harder to see this, but if you look at S. Africa, it's really evident. Before S. Africa went into majority rule, they had a great economy, and the government was much wealthier than most of its neighbors, because of the very simple reason that they weren't spending anything on the huge majority of the population. The money hasn't really changed all that much in S. Africa, but the amount of people that money is being spent on has changed dramatically.

In Zimbabwe, the same thing happened, and the country has yet to really recover (Zim went into majority rule in 1980). In this case, a lot of problems stem from the fact that the constitution that the country operates under is basically a cease-fire document to end the civil war, and is missing a lot of details that pertain to the actual running of the country. The const. is currently being rewritten, but in a nation overflowing with corruption, this new document is likely to favor whoever pays the rewriting committee the most. It's really frustrating to look at this, because it's just problem after problem, laid on top of each other and eventually entwined and there's never enough time or money to solve any of them and they just get compounded.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned AIDS yet. According to my evil (see the Gradeless Universities thread in GD) African Politics prof AIDS is the biggest problem in Africa right now. Some countries (like Uganda) have begun to face the issue and turn things around, but most sub-Saharan African governments have a really hard time admitting that the disease even exists, even as huge amounts of the population die.



------------------
~Harborina

"This is my sandbox. I'm not allowed to go in the deep end. That's where I saw the leprechauns."

[C K Dexter Haven]

Um, please note, Sandy, I did not say that all Western business was bad for Africa. I only said that the problem with oil is that the small ruling class can get very rich and let the country go to hell. This is true in Indonesia as well as Nigeria.

The only hope for these countries is that Western businesses come in and help improve the economy, IMHO.

Kenya is very different from Nigeria: the government and people are interested in bringing in tourists and in improving and developing the country. The Nigerians (generalizing here) have nothing for tourists or visitors except a hard time with the bureaucracy if you don't grease the palms.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Never forget that tribal/clan hatreds & feuds existed in Africa long before the Europeans established colonies there (Hutus & Tutsis are a fine example).

So ----Old Hate + New Weapons=All Hell Busts Loose!!!!! :eek:

[egkelly]

Plus NIGERIA is possibly the most corrupt country in the world! I used to receive (on average) 2-3 letters/month asking me to participate in some kind of scam, which would defraud the government. I understand that people who have fallen for these scams usually lose verything, and there is NO redress from the courts.
Great way to run "Africa's largest democracy"!!

[C K Dexter Haven]

Nigeria had an election almost exactly a year before I was there. It was widely touted as the "cleanest" election ever held in Nigeria, and was seen as a step in the direction of democracy, truth, etc. The person who won the election was tossed in jail immediately after; he was still in jail when I was there. His wife was murdered the week before I arrived, and while I was there, his son was thrown in jail as "protective custody."

When I arrived at the airport, every single official -- customs, immigration, even the guards at the door -- had a hand out for "dash" (small monetary cash gifts.)

Don't get me started.

[DougC]

- - - It doesn't sound pretty to say as much, but PJ O'Rourke said it well in one of his books: " . . there are large problems in Africa, and the people causing them are largely African." - Which is true, like it or not. So really changing anything would involve removing control from the locals, which is gonna take armed forces, which leads me to question if it would be worth it for any foreign country to do; and who else might bother - how many countries other than the US could casually afford such an undertaking? -And that's also the same reason I tend to avoid giving money to charities that work in such areas; I consider the situation to be practically hopeless. I am more likely to believe that if the US took control and actually did start fixing things, after the local peoples get a little fat and happy they'll start with the "live free or die" tripe. At least if they die by starvation, they won't take me or any enlisted friends with them. - MC

[Markxxx]

I thought this was a pretty interestig topic and rather than start it over I thought I'd bump it up to see if anyone else had any thought?

[Rhythmdvl]

I do, but don't have much time to post at the moment. Just wanted to pop in and say that I am about a third of the way into John Reader's A Biography of the Continent Africa (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067973869X/qid=977116112/sr=1-1/107-7680632-1235721). If anyone has any critiques to share or impressions, let me know. So far I have found it an exceptional history book, very well referenced and footnoted. He begins with geology, moves to the foundations of evolution and man (primate's) ascent to sentience and culture, infant civilizations and … and… well, I’ll find out when I get there. Seems very well done, though I have a few reservations about some of his evolutionary assumptions / conclusions. These probably stem from his work as a journalist, rather than a scientist. Overall though, he does a good job of synthesizing diverse fields of study. Again, if anyone's familiar with the work, let me know.

Rhythmdvl

[Grendel69]

Disease, disease, disease, and....Disease anyone?

I am probably going into International Public Health and Africa is ground zero.

Some of the stuff we learn, see, and hear is incredibly scary.

The West makes the mistake of just thinking about Africa and HIV/AIDS, but there are so many other diseases on that continent that are as just as destructive. Malaria and Tuberculosis, for instance, are two examples.

[sethdallob]

"The World's Most Dangerous Places" by Robert Young Pelton goes into historical detail on countries where the "government" is the guy with the biggest gun. It's quite a good reference, and enjoyably sarcastic, too.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062737384/qid=977119549/sr=1-1/002-1027039-8638460

[Collounsbury]

A few comments:

I think this is something like third time since I signed up with SD that I've seen an Africa going to hell thread. No wonder, of course given the poor general conditions, but I do think people are overgeneralzing and a bit too pessimistic.

A few comments on the main points:

(1) Tribal and Ancient Hatreds. This journalistic device is one of the least accurate characterizations. The Hutu-Tutu example is particularly glaring. We have fairly good historical indications that the "ethnicity" as opposed to social classes of Hutu and Tutsi are the direct result of a concerted campaign by the Belgians, the colonial rulers, to set up permanent divides. In the pre-colonial period, according to what I have read from serious histories, Tutsi was as much a descriptor of elite status as an ethnic label. That is someone of modern "hutu" ethnicity, if they rose to power, became "tutsi" and vice-versa. Rather a medieval system, to my impression, so there was some "blood" talk just like European nobles tried to cover up less than "noble" backgrounds. The Belgians exploited this, and with at least partial complicity of course of the ruling "Tutsi", helped elaborate a "tribal" even a racial understanding of this. Of course there are records from prior to this and not everyone bought into it, so we know something about how this came about.

Lesson: most "ancient" hatreds, and this goes for the whole world, are not as ancient as the haters like to claim. Usually the history is more complicated. But the haters who are usually also ambitious exploiters (e.g. Hitler) work hard to elaborate a mythology which makes folks feel good about themselves, exploits social tensions and gives a convenient scapegoat. Such is what led to Rwanda's holocaust in 1994.

Now, for tribes, again, most of what is called "tribal" is nothing of the sort, analytically speaking. Yoruba, Hausa, Xhosa, Ibo. All names you here described in the press, in journalistic books with little deeper learning and the like, described as "tribes." Rubbish. These are languages. A little history is in order. In the late 19th century Europeans "knew" that peoples=nations=languages. E.g. the following line of though: Germanic dialect speakers should be one "people" — despite religious, cultural, dialectal differences, and they should be one nation etc. Old Romantic Nationalism. (Not the only model around, but the predominant one). They also "knew" Africa had no states, culture etc. (All false of course, as a reading of European sources from the 16,17, and even 18th century would show). Just ‘primitives' in ‘tribal' cultures. This of course ignores the multi-ethnic West African empires, to use but one example. But such was the "knowledge" of the day.

So, when colonial rule arrived or was imposed from the 1880s forward, ethnographers/colonial administrators (often one in the same, or working together) and the like busily starting fitting everyone into the preconceived boxes. And as Europeans knew People=Tribe (in Africa)= language, anyone speaking Yoruba for example was assumed to be part of a larger entity called the Yoruba tribe. Of course no such thing had ever existed (rather there were separate kingdoms, some of which were actually multi-ethnic). But tribe it was, and that's how schools taught, and that's how colonial life organized folks, no matter the appropriateness or lack thereof. Further, most colonial policy rested on a kind of divide and conquer principal, so one can count on colonial administrators helping sow dissension or rather encouraging inter-ethnic dissension to prevent unified responses to European rule.

The modern things many mistakenly call "tribe" are in fact quite modern phenomena and analytically are really nascent nations, best called ethnic groups. They bear little relation to pre-colonial socio-political structures and are in fact a very modern phenomena. I provide a link to an excellent on-line essay going into this in much more detail:
http://www.africapolicy.org/bp/ethnic.htm

Up until now you're probably thinking this is all a nitpick. However it radically changes ones analysis of what is going in terms of so-called tribal conflict (which inherently implied a sort of atavism and backwardness): When one understands this as the conflict of emerging modern nations struggling for dominance within one state, one gets a picture which is radically different. It looks like the violent emergence of nations in Europe. The use of the media, everything is quite modern, although not in a good sense. All quite modern phenomena.

Solutions? I've long thought that some states are not viable. Not that one has to have nation-states. Belgium works fairly well. But some national identities seem to be made in direct opposition to others within the same state: either one has to find a way to merge them or they have to separate (or they just do on fighting within a weak state.)

(2) Economic Problems I think the posters who have pointed out that Africa is not homogenous and some states are doing fairly well, or at least not too badly, are right on the money. The most serious immediate issues are government structures which are predatory (not in the abusive libertarian sense, but in a moderate analysis.) The vampire state. Corruption, pseudo-socialism as an excuse for rather medieval forms of surplus extraction make many nations positively anti-economic growth. This has to change.

I think we can assign the West partial blame here:
(1) the states themselves are alien creations --all states are of course but here they are consciously understood that way by their own populaces. Not good for state legitimacy. Thanks colonialism

(2) When one looks closely, the rapacious, extractive rule of many governments, whether "left" or "right" looks a whole lot like the way the colonial powers ruled until the mid-1950s when everyone started shaping up under pressure from the anti-colonial movements.

(3) Post-independence support of rapacious parasite-dictators by both East and West helped lock in bad habits. Both East and West extended sweet-heart soft loans to these characters, and now the poor folks who barely dared consider changing their leaders on their own are saddled with immense non-working debt.

On the other hand, one can not excuse African complicity (at least African elites' complicity) in the game, a series of bad, bad choices and an over-reliance on the colonial issue ( very valid but overused to excuse rapacious behavior )

There's also the population explosion issue. Population growth is just too fast for any reasonable amount of economic growth to keep up with it. Everyone needs to get on board in lowering the population growth rates to prevent a real malthusian disaster.

Health: Africa's a mean place. We evolved there and there are lots of bad boys who know us well. Bad, very bad. I've visited a number places on business and personal trips, always manage to suffer. But do recall that the continent is diverse, and recall not every country is suffering the same as the worst of them. E.g. Uganda and Senegal both have aggressive AIDS policies, Uganda having lowered its infection rate, Senegal having preserved a 1% or so infection rate.

Last item:

Pelton's book is not at all well-researched in re "historical detial". I would recommend something like Cambridge history of Africa or some of Basil Davidson's popular books --although he's somewhat biases as he overcompensates for pessimism and ignorance re the continent.