Are many of the nations of Africa still more or less within their old (Western-drawn) colonial boundries? In other words, if African national borders were redrawn according to what the people of Africa themselves considered to be actual nations, how different would the map appear?
For example, would one nation (what the West sees as Ghana for example), actually be considered (by the people that actually live there) as three or four nations instead what the Western world sees as one?
I’m as far from an expert on Africa as it gets but it’s my understanding that virtually all of the borders in Africa are “artificial” south of the Sahara.
Furthermore I don’t think prior to European interference Africans thought of themselves in terms of “nations” in the western sense.
I’ve read a few books by African authors about African tribes before things became too overran by colonialism. My very vague impression was that within any one “nation” of people with the same customs and language you’d have many tribes. They may war with each other but were also ostensibly allies, and would tend to side with each other against groups from other “nations” with different cultures and language.
Very different. Exactly “how” would be harder to say.
Almost certainly. South Africa, for instance, easily the success story of Africa, could be logically split into several (say 3) smaller countries with relativelly little fuss. This isn’t going to happen, though, because the larger nation makes more sense in the modern world - economically, socially.
The problem comes in that Africans largely see themselves as tribe/ethnicity first, post-colonial nation second, and yet a lot of those tribes have had historically overlapping territories due to different lifestyles or whatever (Hausa/Fulani, Hutu/Tutsi), so who’s to say who gets what territory?
Also, who gets the (largely mixed) cities that arose with colonialism? Which bit of Ghana gets Accra? Which bit of South Africa gets Johannesburg? Ethnically, Zulus originate in Natal, but many of the inhabitants of Johannesburg, which historically falls in another tribe’s territory, are Zulus. What happens to them?
The concept of nations, geographic entitities with a high degree of centralized control is primarily a European invention. Most nations including Great Britain and Canada are “artificial”, exhibiting stresses from geographic minorities.
The nations of Africa were divided by the Europeans within the same time frame as the European division of the middle east. Iraq is an artificial entity as much as any African country. However the middle east has been quite familiar with centralized control by empires going back for millenia.
The difference is that there was no previous social infrastructure in Africa that allowed for a peaceful centralized control of various populations other than the use of the most powerful army. Before assigning Africans their nations, the Europeans invested very little time and money developing the social infrastructure that would make these nations viable.
South Africa appears way ahead of the rest of Africa. The fact that there has been centuries of centralized control there rather than decades may account for the apparent “legitimacy” of their borders.
It’s even more complicated than that - I would say that they would identify with family first, then clan, then tribe, with nation being fourth or even more distant.
Grim
The other problem with the african “nations” is that it is largey impossible to make the transistion to an industrial society (the way the Wset did it 200 years ago). the reason for this is china-suppose you decide to set up a factory in an african country, to make washing machines. You will face all kinds of costs and delays-and when you get your plant up and running, you will find that imported Chinese machines are probably less than the cost of your bill of materials! The same applies to stuff like clothing and processed foods. So the world economy is working AGAINST Africa-I don’t see sub-Saharan Africa sas being anything more that a supplier of raw materials. Which has some pretty serious consequences for the africans-it means: mostly low-wage jobs, extensive poverty, and short lifespans. not a pretty prospect…and that will also impede the nations of africa.
While things are not quite as grim economically as Ralph124c make it out to be, there are certainly problems. One of the biggest is AIDS. According to some statistics, pretty much anyone who wants to may be able to move into some regions of Africa in the foreseeable future. Or it may simply go back to wildland, with nothing left. Unless, of course, medicine gets much better.
Grim, sounds a lot like the ME …
Ralph, what happens when China does well enough that their standard of living and wages go up? Does Africa become more attractive as a source of exploitable labor? (only being a little facetious here)
I understand you are trying to be funny, but you touch on a common misconception that labor is somehow “exploited” if they aren’t paid Western union-level wages. They still get paid more than they would for being a dirt farmer and as manufacterers increasingly move into a country, it does drive the wages up. It also creates more of a middle class as the higher wages can support other services. And yes, as wages increase, it does become more attractive to look to even poorer countries with even lower labor costs.
The catch is (and the problem with much of Africa and the ME) is that most companies want political stability and security. They don’t want to invest in a factory only to have it nationalized in a coupe or burned to the ground by religeous extreamists.
That is to say a coup, not a small sporty car.
Of course Africa is attractive as a source of cheap labor. But cheap labor is only part of the equation. There has to be a certain level of infrastructure to get the raw materials to the factory, and ship the finished materials overseas. It’s a big help if your low-wage workers have some understanding of what’s expected in industrial work. It’s a big help if lots of your workers are literate. It’s a big help if the political power structure isn’t trying to rip you off for as much as possible before they flee to the south of France.
China has a long history of political unity and literacy, people are used to being regimented, the Communist party is willing to supress any labor unrest, China has railroads and seaports. Cheap labor is only part of the equation.
Since states are human creations, their borders are the result of human creations as well - typically war and treaties. If European national borders were redrawn according to what some ethnic groups considered proper, we might have the new countries of Scotland, Catalonia, Basque (or whatever name they would decide), Brittany, Northern Italy (and Southern Italy), and Ukraine might split in half according to the Ukranian-speaking western part and the Russian-speaking eastern part.
The colonial powers built and consolidated their multi-ethnic empires at home first before doing the same in Africa.
You are right! The sad fact is, ever since the 1960’s the African nations have been DESTROYING whatever transport infrastructure they had , under colonial rule. for example-there is no way to ship goods (via rail0 from Ciro, Egypt, to cape Town, SA. The rails have been stolen, ripped up, ties burned, etc. There is no way that industry can operate efficiently under such circumstances. that is why you see imported foods (like breakfast cereals) in hotles in African cities-it is simply cheaper to import it from the USA and Europe, than to make it locally. this is the trap that Africa has fallen in to, and I don’t see them ever getting out.
Well, there is also the little matter of corruption. I’ve actually worked in parts of Africa and you’d have to see it to believe it. Oh, there is corruption in China and India too…but the African’s take it to a much higher plain…THEIR corruption borders on an art form. Couple that with the infrastructure issues and stability issues other posters mentioned and you have a whole lot of echoing silence when it comes to big companies looking to drop a lot of capital investment in starting up manufacturing plants and such in large swaths of Africa. To a certain degree, and in selected areas this is all slowly changing and its possible that things won’t remain so grim there forever…well, at least in SOME parts of Africa.
As for the OP I think its pretty well been answered…nearly ever African (and ME for that matter…hell, most nations including the US) nation is an artificial construct, set up by our pals the Europeans so that they could more easily exploit the various resources they wanted to exploit. When the wheels started coming off of the various Euro colonial empires, they were pretty much left to sink or swim on their own. Unfortunately due to Africa’s history most of them sank for a variety of reasons…most already mentioned by other posters.
-XT
Well, “yes, but…”
Although there are regional divisions that continue in Europe, all of them are based on cultural identity persisting inside the framework of the nation state. Aside from the Basques, (and even there, there is not a unanimity of opinion), no majority of the regions you named want to establish a wholly independent nation. Scots, (and even Welsh), routinely volunteer for British military service. I have never even heard of independence movements within Italy. There is no “Free Burgundy” movement in France. Bavaria may erect signs announcing “You are now entering the Free State of Bavaria” that dwarf the German welcome signs, but they have long since accepted the good sense of Deutschland über Alles (in its original sense).
Furthermore, the suppression of ethnic identity to the larger national identity has been in place for a minimum of 150 years (Germany) and up to 700 years in other places. In addition, the integration of regions into those nation states occurred over a period of centuries. (Even Bismarck’s unification was based on consolidating existing states that had begun to coalesce, not on one massive gathering of hundreds of baronies.) In contrast, the vast majority of the African nations were “created” and abandoned in fewer than 100 years: while South Africa has had some form of European structure (in places) for nearly 400 years with a clear European hold on the region for 200, the (Belgian) Congo was created in 1908 and turned loose in 1960.
Excellent observation. I would add: most colonial powers ran their colonies as if it would go on forever. for example: ANGOLA (portugues colony for 400+ years). the portugues ran angola soley to benefit the mother country; portugues engineers built the cities, portugues contruction companies got the contracts, and the ports all had one purpose; to ship raw materials OUT of the country. there were NO rail links or roads to South Africa, because that was not important. The colony actually paid the salaries of the portugues troops who defended 9held on ) to the country. So, portugal extracted tremendous wealth, and put back very little. In the 1970’s portugal had a revolution at home-so the army, civil servants, teachers,etc., packed up and moved back to Portugal. The result: 30+ years of anarchy, civil war, and misery for the africaninhabiatnt 9save the lucky few who got out).
See following link at Wikipedia:
Granted, there’s some debate on whether the party involved has advocated autonomy or secession, but it does illustrate that there is some sentiment/support for the idea in Italy.
Most (but not all) African countries are the product of colonial-power land divisions, rather than coherent nationalities. There are exceptions, such as Burundi and Swaziland. Some of these countries have attempted to give some recognition to their ethnic mosaic by provincial or federal systems. For example, Nigeria’s regions are specifically structured along ethnic lines (which has of course not stopped ethnic conflict, but was an attempt to do so). Part of the problem lies in the interfoliation of cultural enclaves, so that the Fulani, for example, live in small units interspersed within areas of other nationality in a belt from Senegal to Nigeria and Chad.
Well, yeah, now. Like you said, though, " the suppression of ethnic identity to the larger national identity has been in place for a minimum of 150 years (Germany) and up to 700 years in other places. " In Europe, you see the end of the process, so to speak. There’s no reason that the same thing can’t happen in Nigeria as well. Nigeria is just a lot younger, and the sense of “Nigerianness” hasn’t happened yet.
Absolutely correct. I would never claim that no African country could possibly attain the situation where the majority population perceives itself as of that nation rather than of some smaller ethnic division. I suspect that South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, and, perhaps, Madagascar are well along that path. Several of the relatively small nations along the Guinea Coast have probably started as well.
Ethiopia has been following the European “model” (including internal conquest and internal divisions) for hundreds of years.
My reservations about Gladstone’s post had more to do with a concern over setting up an equivalence between Europe and Africa today that left out the time element. I see nothing of an “African character” that argues against nation states. I see Africa at an earlier stage of political development than Europe.