The same was true of much of 18th century Scotland. They were also a tribal people. But you can’t compare the way Zulus lived precolonization to the way highland New Guineans lived. The New Guineans were a stone age people who lived primarily in little villages that didn’t have much contact with one another. The Zulu were iron age, and a tribal confederation until Shaka, and after him a kingdom. New Guinean society was relatively egalitarian, Zulu society stratified. New Guineans isolated and withdrawn, Zulu connected and aggressive, New Guineans charismatic, Zulu bureaucratic. And frankly, if you lined up some Zulu warriors on one side and New Guinean tribesmen on the other, the Zulu would slice through them like a knife through butter.
lso I’m going to re-post what I said in a (failed) thread I posted
Talking about what causes state failure in Africa is like saying what makes a failed marriage - everyone is unique in its own way and there are a great variety of factors to take into account.
The term colonisation subsumes a vast variety of historical situations, depending, for example on whether military occupation was violent or through local alliances; whether it was followed by settlers rapidly, slowly or not at all - what the social background/class of those settlers was, whether diaspora from India or Lebanon made up large sections of the population, or the time period’s involved ranging from over a century in parts of Senegal to years in the Angolan interior.
Also important is whether colonial governments were based upon British ideas of monarchy and government, French belief in the Republic, Portuguese corporatism or Belgian despotism. Other factors are the different social conflicts embodied in each area be it colonial administrators/missionaries, agrarian/industrial (Kenya) or different white groups (South Africa).
There are 100’s of possible permutations of these factors from the Imperialist side.
These are also matched by the variety of strategies used by indigenous actors; the BaKongo and Fang used the colonial system to maintain, extend and adapt their economic system, to expand their power and influence. The Songhai and Zerma used colonial rule to defend themselves against the Touareg and Peul. In Cameroon the Bassa resisted Germany through military might.
So when you say remember when you say Africa had a great chance in the '60s, Decolonisation wasn’t homogeneous even amongst Africa let alone between Africa and Asia.
Those graphs aren’t GDP per capita, In am afraid :rolleyes:
So, having iron made them “superior” to Guineans? :rolleyes: Many people had iron by the time, including lot of Central Asian nomadic tribes.
Anyways, what are you telling us is that Africans started from a more advanced beginnings. If so, why they stayed there?
Yes, but colonization doesn’t seem to be the main factor in the development of countries, given the fact most of the so called third world passed for that stage, but not all develop at the same rate.
That’s what I’m trying to say just because two countries or areas were colonised doesn’t mean they had the same experiences - and due to that its not accurate to say ‘both were colonised why is one side doing better’ the specifics (such as those I mentioned) matter.
Innately morally superior, no. Technologically and organizationally superior, yes. And you’re right, a lot of people had iron at the time. Most of the world did. But New Guinea didn’t. And I don’t know what “If so, why they stayed there?” means? Is the question, “If the Zulu were more advanced than the New Guineans before colonization, why aren’t they now?”
OECD countries compared to SS Africa
http://www.owen.org/wp-content/uploads/gdp_per_capita_1.gif
Compare Africa with New Guinea
Ummm, neither was the graph you cited. The goalpost moving in this thread is getting a little silly. I think its been shown pretty clearly by Even Sven cite that Paupa New Guinea is not really doing wildly better then the various sub-Saharan African countries.
If it were by violence alone, no other region in the world suffered more than the Americas. And you can see there now that many of these countries are either developed or in process of getting so. China was exploited by forcing drug consumption during a century, as well, and recovered. So, “suffering” is very relative to excuse lack of progress.
Its a streatch to call Botswana an outlier, its not that hard to find several other African countries with similar gdps/capita. Eyeballing this chart, Paupa New Guinea would be in the top half of African Countries by GDP per capita, but not in the top third.
On the other hand:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:PNG&dl=en&hl=en&q=papua+new+guinea+gdp+per+capita#met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:PNG:ZAF:BWA:NAM:SWZ:AGO
I wouldn’t be so quick to call Botswana an outlier.
Man, Equatorial Guinea got raped by the Recession.
Not that bad either for Papua New Guinea, a country comming from prehistory in comparison to the iron-age culture of Africa, and also considering than among the top SS African countries is South Africa, an industrial country developed by Europeans.
Right, yeah, I meant only “outlier” with respect to the particular set of countries chosen by you in your original (non per capita) graph. I perhaps should have made that more clear. (My sole goal was to take your graph and change it to per capita GDP, since conversation was asking for it, but I found it difficult to discern what was going on in that graph when all the non-Botswana countries were clumped at the bottom in comparison, and thus made another version of that particular graph without the Botswana. I felt further selection of countries on my own part would be perceived as making a greater point than I cared to offer.)
Paupa New Guinea has its own advantages though. It is rich in natural resources and is close to several developed economies with markets for those resources.
But regardless of reasons, I’d say the answer to the question in the OP is “no”. SS Africa is not lagging behind New Guinea. If New Guinea were part of Africa, it would be more or less in the “middle of the pack” compared to its neighbors and wouldn’t stand out as being particularly economically successful.
I will say, the high performance of the Republic of the Congo so far as GDP per capita goes surprised me (perhaps because I keep mentally conflating it with the Democratic Republic of the Congo).