Wherever it has occured, colonization has invariably been disasterous for the indigenous population for the simple reason that any large scale colony is inherently in competition with the natives for use of natural resources. Benevolent childrens’ tales of The First Thanksgiving aside (from which the Pilgrams clearly benefitted more than the indians) the way the aboriginal population used the land was at odds with European methods of cultivation, which were designed to support sedentary high density populations.
Colonism could be said to have been “successful” (in the sense of supporting large colonial populations and resulting in a marginally politically stable, self-supporting society and economy) in some places like India, Brazil, Argentina, North America, et cetera essentially based upon how well the colonists were able to either integrate into or displace the aboriginal populations; areas in which the native population maintained a distinct, nonintegrated culture (Latin America, sub-Saharan Central Africa) have largely resulted in social and political instability. It’s interesting to note that with the exception of India and Sri Lanka, viritually all former colonies that have successfully transitioned to industrialized self rule are all in temperate zones.
I don’t have any firm explanations for why post-colonial Africa (save for South Africa) is such a charlie-fox, but here are some off the cuff speculations:[ul]
[li]The poor quality of agricultural land, combined with a lack of education on modern methods of augmenting agricultural qualities, as resulted in a lack of self-sufficiency for European-type crops in sub-Saharan Africa.[/li][li]This, in turn, makes the nations in question dependent upon exploiting a few natural resources, which makes long-term large colonization non-viable; hence, the Europeans made little effort at integration, and when they left (taking balanced trade and infrastructure maintenance with them) it left the resulting societies in a trade gulf, and without leverage to negotiate for fair prices.[/li][li]Native societies became the African analogue to South Pacific cargo cults; enthralled by the spoils of industrialization without the means to produce the goods themselves, nor the knowledge to build or maintain an industrial infrastructure.[/li][li]Traditional stills and social structures were destroyed in the process of faux colonization, leaving the nations of Central Africa in the grip of whomever could promise strong leadership regardless of how specious the claim. When the colonial powers left en masse they took with them the legal and political protections against instability and mob rule, and intermediary tribal affiliations to moderate political impulse, whomever could grab control of the detritus and sell out to whatever Western or Soviet intrest first became “President For Life”.[/li][li]The surreptitious puppeteering of Cold War powers, each vying for control of assets, and more importantly a way of facing off without inflaming a broader open war, exacerbated this. There was always some megalomaniac with a fanatic core of groupies willing to sell influence, and thus the ability to acquire cash and military equipment to attain power. This generally backfired on the “investors”, as the alliegence was strictly a mercenary one. Despite repeated failures at such efforts, the participants never seemed to learn that handing over guns and money to rebel groups failed to guarantee any kind of loyalty or anticipated payback. So it goes.[/li][li]The lack of broad scale education means that both then and now most Africans are ignorant of both their own traditional means and skills and of modern science and industry; as a result, they’re superstitious and easily swayed by utterly absurd claims. This is amplified by the rampant xenophobia and paranoia regarding outsiders in most African cultures, which has been credibly justified by the treatment by colonial powers. [/li][li]Modern Western aid in Africa is, by and large, more about making the European NGOs look good and providing charitable tax breaks than providing basic needs for Africans. The people at the bottom levels of the structure may work tirelessly in an effort to improve aid and support for Africans, but at higher levels it is a bureaucratic structure intent on maintaining its existance and income. For the cost of one of the shiny white air conditioned Land Cruisers which are so prevelent, several villages could be provided with basic education, medical care, and the ability to produce clean fresh water. [/ul]Colonialism was a disaster for Africa, save South Africa, for which it was still bad (under the Apartheid regime), but at least there was a genuine effort at actually colonizing rather than pure resource exploitation (the De Beers diamond cartel aside), and a resulting permanent industrial infrastructure. Suggesting that neocolonialism would solve the problems of Africa is like suggesting that what an abused child needs is some physical discipline. [/li]
What Africa needs–and seems unlikely to get internally or accept externally–is strong noncorrupt leadership, comprehensive basic education and technical literacy, and a way of integrating industrial development into traditional African lifestyles without bluntly enforcing authoritarian changes. No amount of raw cash is going to accomplish this; indeed, throwing money at Africa seems to have only exaggerated the corruption, often to the short-term benefit of Western nations. And occupying a nation to enforce cultural change as a sordid and mostly unsuccessful history; witness Southeast Asia and the general messes left there by various nations which have subsequently and wisely gotten out of the colonization business. And whatever needs to be done with Africa is going to happen on the scale of generations, not years or even a couple of decades.
Stranger