One can encompass the other without being it at the same time.
Having spent more than a few days in Africa, I’d say the main problems there are (in no particular order):
-
Lack of education
-
Tribalism and tribal conflicts
-
Corruption
-
Disease
-
Environmental degradation
-
Totalitarian regimes
-
Oppression of women
I wouldn’t have the nerve to hazard a guess how many of those are due to colonialism …
One can, but you have utterly failed to show that in the **specific case **of the recolonialist imperative, it has. Whereas I think all the shit about generalised “Africans” being unable to govern themselves etc. argues in my favour.
NOTE: I have switched (in case anyone noticed) to saying recolonialism rather than neocolonialism because I think we’re discussing a specific subset of general neocolonialism.
**
intention**, I think it’s impossible to put numbers, but at a rough thumbsuck, I’d say about half the messed-up nature is due to Colonialism, and half is due to pre-colonial cultural trends like tribalism and sexism (but both of those were certainly exacerbated by Colonial powers) and postcolonial ideology - Multinational Capitalism, Communism and, seemingly, Islam. Although , again, there’s considerable overlap there between the periods of the ideologies and the last gasps of Colonialism.
And thanks for the fix, Frank.
I don’t know, is Frank a White European? 
This all started because I lashed out at someone in GD who said that all colonialism was evil.
My view is that until 1858 British ‘colonialism’ was an accident, run by Haliburton type companies and thoroughly disreputable, but after 1858 it was totally different.
I’ve a feeling that Acid Rain’s idea of sponsorship or mentoring might be a good idea, primarily because it would prevent our corrupt wolves conspiring with local government officials to syphon off funds.
Some really good hydroelectric schemes could make quite a difference.
Okay. Now we’re getting somewhere. I think I’ve made a good case for how the unique aspects (such as geography and natural resources) and the human elements have combined in in such a way as to present a fairly unique problem. I’ve never said thay they were or are uncapable of governing themselves, merely that in the cases of particularily troubled areas that perhaps they just aren’t ready yet to govern a modern nation. I can see how that might be construed as a racist sentiment as well, considering the history. However that was not the intent; nor do I feel that without other, storger indicators of a racist ideology that the term is warranted. I’ll agree to disagree if you will.
I hadn’t noticed, but now that you point it out i’ll apologize if you were referring in particular to a group advocating a return to the same obviously racist system as before.
It sounds here like we are on the same page regarding some post-colonial cultural trends here.
I don’t agree that it can be a unique problem when all the symptoms that are being pointed to - corruption, famine, war, disease - are worldwide phenomena. If all the symptoms aren’t unique, how can you claim the cause is?
Cat’s out of the bag, though - they’re sovereign nations now, the only way to recolonise is conquest, IMO.
I have no problem with UN-sanctioned peacekeeping missions in troublespots like Darfur, where the intent is to save lives and nothing more. I have no problem if a country in Africa decided, by general internal referendum, that it wanted to be administered by a foreign power. I have no problem with someone capping Bob Mugabe on the toilet, if it comes down to it.
What I have specifically have a problem with is involuntary recolonial model for solving Africa’s problems.
OK, let’s just say I have less rigid criteria for discerning racism, and we can let it go .
Have you been reading FRDE and Martini’s posts? They’re all about the White Man’s Burden, Unsunsetting Empire style of Colonialism. They think the British Empire was a good idea, and that’s the kind of system they would like to return to. And it was definitely a racist one. I think they confuse “not the worst” with “not bad”, myself:
“Totally different”, yeah right. The Scramble never happened, and Cecil Rhodes was a harmless old fuddy duddy.
These debates are always like this. Some moron starts extolling the virtues of colonialism. Then I point out that it was a racist and economically destructive system for most of the 3rd world. They respond with basically “nuh-uh.” So, I start posting cites. Do they ever respond with their own cites? Nope. Instead, they either (1) dishonestly try to change the topic (stop blaming all white people! other people can be racist! other systems are bad! colonialists did some good things!), (2) display their complete ignorance about the subject (Australia! Canada!) (2) ignore my cites and instead speculate about what could have happened, or (3) try to dishonestly meander around the definitions of colonialism and racism.
One more thing. We have a system in the world which seems to work far better at providing economic prosperity and stability than colonialism or communism or anything else has ever done. It’s called a well-regulated capitalist/socialist market with a representative form of government. People who are serious about figuring out how to help Africa would actually be trying to figure out a way to make that system work in Africa.
As this is the Pit, can I rant?
White European Twentieth Century history (this is just in Europe, mind you. We won’t even get into what they did everywhere else):
1 - WWI, reducing most of Continental Europe to a smoking ruin.
2 - This is followed, in Russia, by revolution, civil war and famine, and then a totalitarian government that kills millions or maybe tens of millions in a systematized fashion, simply because their politics are different than the Orthodox whatever being put out by said government.
3 - In Germany, you had hyperinflation, then Nazism.
4 - In Portugal and Italy, fascism. I hear the trains ran on time in Italy, though.
5 - After a bit of hyperspeculation in the Twenties, a Great Depression in the Thirties, and then WWII.
6 - In said war, tens of millions more die, many because their racial/religious profile didn’t match the ideal of the Nazi German regime. Not to mention politics.
7 - Summing up, your politics could get you killed in either the USSR or Nazi Germany. Meantime, mere accident of birth could get you killed in Nazi Germany.
8 - Europe is once again reduced to a smoking ruin.
9 - Russia takes the Eastern parts, and grants them the right to live under their continuing totalitarian system.
10 - The US takes the Western parts, and most of it finally starts to prosper. Except for Iberia, where Spain and Portugal continue to labor under fascism.
11 - Eventually, Spain and Portugal go democratic, Russia collapses under the weight of its wonky economics and gives up the Eastern half, and now, finally, the Eastern half of Europe begins to thrive.
In the face of all this, here on the SDMB, we still get posters who, apparently unaware that Europe couldn’t find a way to govern itself for a hundred years, figure that Africa needs some lessons from their old European masters.
Yeesh.