Throughout much of central and west Africa, the 20th century de-colonization by the “Western” powers has been an absolute disaster of the highest order.
Sierra Leone, Angola, the Congo, etc. etc. - it’s generous to call them “nations”; but all are governed by a cynical and corrupt elite who rule through the force of arms, all fraught with shocking poverty and appalling human rights abuses - up to and including genocide and systematic mutilation. Basic human needs like education and health care are nonexistent at best. Rare species are being poached into extinction.
Outside the immediate reaches of the thugs in power, anarchy reigns supreme. Once-glamorous cities (built by Europeans) now dissolve back into the jungle, lacking any maintenance whatsoever - little if any electricity, sewage-tainted water, you name it. Yet these cities are still densely inhabited by flocks of people who clearly have no place else to go.
How strange all this is, when the area in question is easily among the very richest, resource-wise. There’s enough there to raise the standard of living for all citizens a hundredfold.
It seems perfectly apparent that much of indigenous postcolonial Africa is unable, unwilling, or is simply too ignorant to take care of itself. Petty dictators set themselves up in absolute power and milk the nation for all it’s worth (after all, nobody lives forever, might as well die rich and powerful); meanwhile, the quality of life for the commoner plummets.
I propose that certain nations of the West - Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, etc. - step right in and reclaim what was once theirs. It could only be a good thing for the locals, just imagine: the rule of law, infrastructure, education, jobs, and the same basic rights of any other citizen. Environmental regulation. Freedom from fear that the day after tomorrow the tribe down the road is going to go bananas and run over and machete you and your entire village into a hundred pieces before getting away scot-free.
As a side benefit, these nations could then once again claim the unimaginable resources of the region - thereby (for example) propping up the Euro, providing cheaper gasoline, and so on.
It’s a win-win, as I see it.
This is a joke right? Why not have Britian re-colonize the United States, what with the crime here and what not…
Well, if you mean that some of the weathy Western countries should send their best diplomats and economists to Africa to work with the tribal leaders and politicians to help them form new countries reflecting the tribal territories according to the will of the people, and then to help those new countries establish governments of their choosing, and then provide tons-o-aid while they stabilize and build up their infrastructures as they see fit, and then getting the hell out and leaving them to their own business—yah, I might support that.
Otherwise, I don’t think they’re interested in your imperialistic “help”.
…by several politicians in the Philippine Islands! I don’t have the link, but many in the PIs have proposed inviting the USA back in!
Of course, the main problem will be,that the former colonial powers DON"T want colonies!
Actually, colonies (except for the Begian Congo and Hong Kong) were probably net losses for the mother country. Often, they were more trouble than they were worth-for example, France inherited a huge colonial empire in the middle east (as the result of the collapse of Ottoman Turkey in WWI). This included Syria and Lebanon-yet they had to station several army divisions in the region to keep the native rebels at bay. And, the British had their hands full holding on to India (remember that pesky chap, Ghandhi?).
No, Africa will descend into anarchy and poverty, until it abandons tribalism. Unfortunately for them, we must remember that the transition from tribalism (through feudalism to nationalism) in Europe took centuries-and Africa has no time .
Considering that much of the trouble that modern Africa is having is the direct result of the colonial powers’ policies in the first place, I imagine they probably feel they’ve had about all the “help” of that sort they can stand. Check out the recent Is Africa Headed for Disaster? thread for some more intelligent and better-informed assessments of the African situation than the OP of this thread provides.
why don’t you read KING LEOPOLD’S GHOST to see what good the western powers did for the congo? sorry don’t recall the author’s name.
Dal TimgarRTA - wow, I’m speechless.
[quote]
I propose that certain nations of the West - Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, etc. - step right in and reclaim what was once theirs. It could only be a good thing for the locals, just imagine: the rule of law, infrastructure, education, jobs, and the same basic rights of any other citizen. Environmental regulation. Freedom from fear that the day after tomorrow the tribe down the road is going to go bananas and run over and machete you and your entire village into a hundred pieces before getting away scot-free. **
Did it ever occur to you that many of Africa’s present troubles are the result of 200-300 years of European colonization? Do you think that during colonial times these powers were concerned with providing “rule of law, infrastructure, education, jobs, and the same basic rights for any other citizen…environmental regulation” for the people living in Africa when they were in power? No, they were concerned with extracting as much as they could, as quickly as they could, with the least amount of investment possible. They created environmentally devastating plantation economies and extraction industries based on slave labor. They created the international slave trade. They executed or imprisoned any Africans who opposed their practices. They quelled any African leader who tried to find alternatives.
What do you mean by “indigenous post-colonial African”? Have you ever met one?
You mention “glamourous cities built by Europeans.” Are you referring to Timbuktu? Marrakesh? Cairo, perhaps?
Look, bad things happened in Africa before the arrival of Europeans. Slavery existed, with crucial key differences - slaves could eventually gain a place in the family or group and it was usually not perpetual. Famine, war, greedy leaders - all of it existed without Europe’s help. There’s simply no way we can know what would have happened to Africa if not for colonialism, but unfortunately we can trace many of the current problems directly back to their fetid colonial sources. I do suggest you read the “Is Africa heading for disaster” thread - from here Africa looks like one big mess, from a distance we only get a small part of the picture.
With the possible exception of “genocide and systematic mutilation” could you explain how this is different from Africa under European rule? Like magdalene, I am also unclear on which European-built cities in Africa were paradises or glamorous.
Aren’t these two goals almost mutually exclusive, raising the local standard of living and exploiting the resources for the benefit of foriegners? I suspect this is only possible when the locals and foriegners can meet and bargain as equals, not when the foriegners hold the political reigns to slant economics in their own favor.
Africa’s got a ton of problems, but I don’t think a return to imperialism will make them better. I have never heard of any “golden age” of Africa under the colonial powers.
Oh yes. Just the things that characterized Euporean colonization the first time 'round.
A hundred years ago, people had at least some excuse for saying the stuff you’re saying. Now, you’re either joking or (my apologies to the Great Debate but I must speak the truth) a total fucking idiot.
Or, if you’re just ignorant, King Leopold’s Ghost might be a good place to start.
“reclaim what was once theirs”? Sheesh!
How can any rational person continue to blame the ex-colonial powers for Africa’s present plight? It has been almost 40 YEARS since Britain left Uganda-almost 3 GENERATIONS! I fully admit that Belgium RAPED the Congo - but again, after 40 years you might think the locals could get their act together.
The really sad thing is that many of these nations are RICH - the Congo has gold, cobalt, uranium, bauxite, and a host of other minerals and raw materials that the world needs. There is just no managerial class capable of running the country.
I too have been to sub-saharan Africa, and the slums surrounding the cities are beyond belief. At the end of the 19th century, european and american cities had such slums-but these were temporary, and as the economies industrialized, the worker’s incomes and living standards rose dramatically. However, Africa is not and will not ever industrialize, so these hellish slums are permanent, and in fact will get worse with time.
Well, a rationale person might very well consider that modern African governments form and content are largely those of the colonial robber-baron states. A rational person reasonably familiar with the practice of colonial government and the practices of post-colonial government might reasonbly fault the post-colonial rulers for adopting their colonial masters’ habits to the T.
Forty years is not a terribly long time in many respects. The slums of 19th century Europe lasted a good deal longer than 40 years. Get their act together? Has there yet been a chance?
Wealth comes less from resources than from having a society capable of generating value. As other posters have noted, most African nations lump together a bunch of peoples who had little past history together and may even have been sworn enemies. Little chance for social stability nor stable government. The post-colonial situation, also the cold-war situation, did not allow for border changes etc. Both the United States and the Soviet Union manipulated, bribed or otherwised funded their own bad boys to prevent the other guy from getting a step up. Of course, African leaderships were complicit in this. Does that make Africans complicit? Perhaps to an extant, yes.
Add to this Africa may be one of the most cursed continents in terms of agriculture (fragile soils which do not sustain long-term cultivation are widespread, the Tse-Tse fly and the scourges it carries undermine livestock raising and human health) and weather (drought, drought, drought) and you do not have auspicious beginnings.
Africa will never industrialize? Why? Certainly a lot of changes have to be made so that industrialization gets a real hold in Africa, but South Africa is already a moderately industrialized nation. Its economic policies are all free-trade oriented and indeed the new government is less socialist in actual policy than the old Boer government. Ghana and Cote d[Ivoire both have small industrial bases. It’s not impossible, even if unlikely in the short run. Stability is needed above all other things. Stability of course has to come from building strong civil societies although with ethnic particularism() that may be impossible in countries like Congo… In other countries, perhaps there is some hope.
(: On why I’m not writing tribalism see http://www.africapolicy.org/bp/ethnic.htm )
Is anyone aware of a resource discussing what Africa would look like if national boundaries were redrawn to reflect ethnic differences instead of historical colonial borders? I can imagine the immediate difficulty of selecting a specific time to be represented, but just curious.
Kimstu said {quote]Considering that much of the trouble that modern Africa is having is the direct result of the colonial powers’ policies in the first place
[/quote]
When the europeans got there the people were fighting tribal wars, eating manioc and dying at 25. THe europeans got there, enslaved some, did some bad things, then left. Nw the people are fighting tribal wars, eating manioc and dying at 35. ** and it is all our fault**.
IT is not our fault that Africa is about the same as it has been for 15,000 years. Colonialism was a blip in the staarving, wretched, brutal history of Africa. Not the cause of same.
Mr. Z- I think you’re being way too sensitive on this issue.
Quite frankly, the colonial powers never had any interest in protecting or helping the natives; their interest was to grab as many resources as possible and get rich. The natives were viewed as a local labor source which needed to be carefully watched just in case they decided to rebel- not unlike the economy in the American South.
When the colonial powers decided to end their colonies, they did so haphazardly and in general without care for what happened to those colonies in the future. Colonial government and internal structures were turned over to a populace that had no understanding or appreciation for it, and in many cases which considered it a symbol of the oppression they had suffered under.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the colonial powers are completely and comprehensively culpable for Africa’s struggles. But they do share a great deal of the blame.
Let me put it to you this way- a guy with leprosy is wandering down the street when a mugger hits him with a 2x4 and steals his wallet (containing the leper’s life savings). Now, the mugger certainly didn’t give the guy leprosy, but you can’t say the mugger particularly helped the guy, now, can you?
Dinsdale, at university I took a required class called Map of the Modern World, which covered boundary changes that had happened since 1900 - basically, “Let’s map out the decolonization process and look at where there are STILL border conflicts today.”
The Prof. put exactly such a map up in front of the class one day. It looked like a mosaic, with most “countries” ending up about the size of Rhode Island. I can email the prof. and find out if it’s online anywhere.
Yeah, & the nasty fighting & genocide that we’re seeing in the Balkans right now didn’t happen while that region was in the grip of repressive Communism. Should we bring back Stalin & his policies?
I think a lot of the problems currently plaguing Africa have to do with national boundaries that were arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers. Because of this, factions who historically hate each others’ guts are supposed to be part of the same nation & get along like happy friends. (Think of the Hutus & the Tutsis in Rwanda…) These borders are also an obstacle to traditionally nomadic groups that used to pick up & move on to greener pastures when food got scarce. It’s harder to do that now, so they have to stay put & starve.
John, I am not sure that I am being any more sensitive about this than I am to anything else.
You said
And I am saying that they are not to blame at all. Using your anaology about the leper, the colonial powers were not, as you point out, the cause of the leprosy. They caused a bruise. the leper i sonly marginally worse offHowever, the colonial powers also brought some good things to the dark continent. I doubt that the hutus had antibiotics.
Well, Mr. Z., many researchers have shown evidence for many specific problems in sub-Saharan Africa that colonial policies were responsible for, and that did not exist (or were much less destructive) before the colonial period. Of course, nobody is saying that all of Africa’s problems are the result of colonialism. But if you persist in saying that the colonial powers “are not to blame at all”, we would be happy to see your cites for that.
In the meantime, here is one example from a University of Maryland article on the sources of the devastating Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Rwanda:
Do you have any citations for any of your allegations?
Dying at 25?
(Implied) constant tribal warfare?
There were a number of very stable societies throughout Africa prior to the arrival of the Europeans. At the time of the European world expansion, many people all over the world were at about the same level of technological advancement as the peoples of Africa. Only in Africa did the European colonists establish a bureacracy that routinely excluded the local people from participating in (and thus becoming familiar with) the workings of the infrastructure. (Most Caribbean nations are run well enough by the mixed indigenous/African people who were allowed to participate in the colonial infrastructure–and those countries that are not stable have a long history of interference by the U.S. and other countries.)
Africa suffered many more destabilizing attacks on local governments by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. than other regions of the world (only to “defend democracy” or to “advance socialism” of course.) (The other battlefields in the Cold War, Latin America and the peninsula of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar/Burma, and Thailand have a number of problems similar to Africa’s, differing primarily in that local people were always employed in the infrastructure.)
In every place that Europeans imposed boundaries that were in conflict with “natural” societal boundaries, there has been conflict that remains to this day: (e.g., Indonesia/Timor, Philipines/Sulu Archipelago, India & Sri Lanka/Tamil). Africa was the one place where there were so few islands and mountain ranges, that nearly the entire continent was “organized” with built-in instability.
So, while the whole world has been jerked forward into the late 20th century, teetering on the 21st, only Africa as a region has been brought forward lacking most of the European tools and hampered by hostilities imposed by European political decisions. The significant difference between Africa and Indonesia or the Philipines is that the former nations were allowed to become nations while they were colonies. The tribal disputes in those countries, while tragic, are limited to areas distant from the core industrial and financial centers. In Africa, nearly every “20th century” location is located in the heart of areas of struggle. When the colonial powers pulled out, usually they simply said “good luck” and left.
Claiming that “They’re no worse off than we found them.” is wrong. Claiming that Europeans had nothing to do with establishing the current problems is myopic.
At best, No.
Starvation, for example, (beyond tiny localized events) was introduced to Africa in the 20th century. The methods of food production and distribution were radically altered by the introduction of European politics. (You will be glad to note, Mr.Z that I would attribute most of the problems to the Socialist experiments that were carried out, there.) However, the notion of Africa as a brutal place where people barely subsisted is simply not an accurate picture of pre-European African life.
The African situation is quite comparable to the situation of the Irish potato famine: foreign methods of food production were introduced, and when those methods suffered a catastrophic failure (potato blight vs Saharan drought), the authorities (or their successors) who had introduced the new methods were unable to provide relief. In each case, authoritarian (European or European-style) governments exacerbated the problems.
I will cerrtainly agree that most if not all famine and starvation is caused by political actions.
AS for my claim that the Africans are no better or worse, the best way to weigh this would be to look at infant mortality, life expectancy, clories per capita per day, etc. Unfortunatly, I have no good source for this in pre colonial times. I doubt that the zulus kept such records. I doubt they knew what a calorie is.
My point is that if the Africans were living in cow dung huts and eating tubers in 1500, you can’t say today “the poor africans are living in huts and eating tubers. IT is the white man’s fault!”
As for tribal fighting, I am no historian, but just looking at the cultures of the ancient world and norther africa, there was a hell of a lot of enslavement and fighting going on. I think that it is disengenuous to state that the africans were all getting along as peaceful, nobel savages before the europeans showed up.
It seems to me that those most vocal about the euros wrecking Africa are the ones who most want the euros to give aid to africa. Is it the white man’s burden or isn’t it?