*Originally posted by js_africanus *
Hmmm…looks like someone’s been reading their DeSoto
I didn’t know there was anything on tv that had the power to shock me anymore before I saw that. I thought I had seen everything. The image of a soldier proudly showing the camera the dismembered ear of a fallen dictator still haunts me. ::shudder::
You don’t fear AIDS? Remind me not to date you.
It is instructive to see how many of them were contracted. Take the late Mobutu’s Zaire: basically Mobutu STOLE every cent he could lay his hands on. His country was quite rich in minerals (Zaire was the world’s leading exporter of cobalt), but his depredations were so extreme, that the mining company couldn’t affort to import spare parts for the mining machinery!
Things got so bad that the mines shut down…Mobutu didn’t careone bit!
While his people were slipping into poverty, Mobutu had his favorite pink champaign flown in from france…when he finally died, the country was broke, and the national railroad had fallen into disrepair.
This scenario has been replayed in just about every African country…the truth is, corruption is rampant in Africa, and this situation isn’t likely to change.
I think you have a good point there. I’m not sure I’m entirely convinced, but AIDS is a big problem. As I understand it, in some nations it has reached Black Death proportions, in terms of people infected. So I agree that HIV is a problem that should not be neglected.
Some good points here but I’d like to make one more small observation.
Another significant factor in the difficulties SSA has faced are geographic. The entire continent has a terrible dearth of navigable rivers. What rivers there are are either swampy and choked with trees or shallow, fast and not useful for commerce or transportation.
While this seems trivial, imagine the expansion of the United States without the Ohio, Potomac, and Mississippi rivers.
Railroads have been mentioned as an alternative and indeed they could do a lot to help the lack of rivers. Unfortunately, the historical realities have made them largely useless. The vast majority of railroads in SSA were built either by colonial governemnts or companies operating under a franchise from the same. These railroads were merely funnels by which colonial powers siphoned off the natural resources of their territories. They were usually in a straight line from the plantations, mines or other resource areas. [sub]I always get a weird Imperialist shiver when I think of an entire region reduced to a mere "Resource Area[/sub]
As a result, you have vast areas which have no readily available or economically viable means of transportation. Populations tend to stagnate while technological and medical advances are slow to percolate down.
It makes me so sad that this thread seems to be trailing off as compared to all the ones about Osama and the war. Maybe this is ‘Why Africa’ - because it’s too depressing, and not as glamorous as the other stuff that’s in the news. Have we given up on the continent? When are we going to start paying attention?
One of the major reasons I am against invading Iraq is because it will take many resources away from doing positive things in places like Africa. American troops in Iraq can’t do anything to help Africans (or other third world nations), and foreign aid that goes to help in any rebuilding will probably be at a cost to Africa as well. No one is talking about environmental sustainability or reducing debt because everyone (not just on the SDMB, but people who have the power to make a difference - at the UN, Bretton Woods etc) is focussed on the Middle East. I’m not suggesting that the Middle East isn’t worthy, but it’s too easy for other places to slip through the cracks. Africa NEEDS the world’s attention, especially now with the famine and AIDS, but eyes are all turned elsewhere.
Remember the conference in Rio de Janero about sustainable development, when the wealthy countries promised to try to help developing countries with environmental (etc.) problems? Remember how much that was in the news? Last year was the Rio +10 conference, in Johanessburg, and it was barely a blip in the international consciousness. The Rio commitments have largely been forgotten. (In a memorable moment, Colin Powell was loudly jeered by a massive auditorium full of people when he tried to tell them about America’s commitment to the environment.) Why don’t we care any more?
I note that wonderful things are happing in Kenya these days that don’t even make the papers - as evidenced by the fact that I don’t even know enough to tell you about it! (A link is on the way, I will post it ASAP.) But I worry that even that won’t be of much interest.
[hijack]Environmental quality is a good–concentrate on development and the sustainability will follow.[/hijack]
Besides the colonialization, why d’ye suppose Africa was so easy to conquer in the first place?
Africa is not a good place for civilization.
Unlike Asia and Europe, which are “horizontal” continents, Africa is a vertical continent. There is a greater biome concentration, and therefore it is not easy to
a) transfer crops
b) move
Also, there are few domescable animals (the zebra has not yet been domesticated). Because of these inhibitors of civilization, Africa has lagged behind the rest of the world.
athelas, I’ve read “Guns, Germs and Steel” as well. I think Jared Diamond would join me in questioning your use of the phrase “Africa is not a good place for civilisation”. It’s one thing to attempt to explain why certain advances were made where they were but quite another to suggest that Africa will never become civilised.
I meant that it is harder to start a civilization there. SOrry if you misinterpreted.
After reading the posts here i feel one important aspect has been ignored, many people have stated that colonialism is partly to blame for the fact that Africa is lagging behind. I would say that the opposite is true, in fact the Europeans accelerated the progress these countries made significantly. Many seem to forget that these countries were already far behind in terms of advancement when the Europeans first arrived, they were in effect playing catchup already. Colonialism is a very easy way for many of these countries to lay blame, when in fact its the corruption of the leaders that has kept the average person in these countries poor and disadvantaged. Most of the infrastructure within Africa is due to colonialism not in spite of it.
Rogue
rogue, I think some of the assumptions you make (perpetuate?) are among the reasons for Africa’s problems.
Words like ‘progress,’ ‘advancement,’ ‘playing catchup’ and most especially ‘civilization’ are defined according to Western standards, not African, and they do not translate well. For example, your view of ‘progress’ may be economic growth, while an African woman’s view may be a reliable supply of clean drinking water. She is not likely to participate in your plans for ‘progress’ if you show no interest in hers, especially if her kids have cholera.
Africa was doing alright, relatively speaking, before the colonists came: growing crops for themselves instead of for export, running their own industries (private and public) instead of foreigners. The colonialists saw Africa as something to ‘develop’ for ther own purposes, instead of for the people who live there.
And in this they have been successful: today they (we) have more access to Africa’s resources (diamonds, lumber, cotton, sugar, coffee, chocolate, cheap labour, income from ‘public sector’ services such as water/sanitation and electricity, etc) than Africans do, which I think is at the crux of my earlier question: why doesn’t anyone care?
‘Civilization’ is loaded with assumptions as well: what does it mean to be ‘uncivilized’? It means, to not accord with a standard that has been defined by one culture (or a group of similar cultures). This is automatically assumed to be a negative state of affairs, and those ‘uncivilized’ are in need of the influence of people who are civilized (like us), who know better how life should be.
Doesn’t that seem a bit patronizing, considering the xenophobia and racism with which Africa has been treated in the past? They got on quite well before meeting Western culture, but we arrogantly assume that we know how people should live, and Africans don’t live that way, so this somehow entitles us to (a) look down on them for it and (b) impose our values on them so they can be more like us. What if they aren’t interested in ‘civilization’? Is it because they’re too stupid to know any better? Or does it not matter what they want?
Look, we can’t even define the whole of the problems of Africa. We’ve been trying off an on to help for years, and we don’t have clue where to begin. It seems everything we try makes the situation worse.
There’s never going to be enough time or resources for anyone, not just Africa. I also question this attitude that the US now has responsibility for Africa.
athelas I haven’t read that book. I think you’re lookign at it the wrong way, though. You don’t need to talk about Biomes. Most of Africa has terrible soils, and is not good farmland. This is one major reason why its in such bad shape.
*Originally posted by rogue4007 *
I strongly question this assumption. There were several, fairly well-advanced civilizations that existed in Sub-Saharan Africa prior to European contact - some on par (if not more advanced) than some civilizations in Europe (for example, the Mali and Songhai Empires in western Africa). One needs to understand that, from a historical perspective, Europe lagged behind other places (China, Ottoman Empire, etc.). It wasn’t until approximately the 1500-1600’s that Europe caught up with the rest of the “developed” world and surpassed them. I think a key feature that allowed Europe to surpass the other regions and create a “European hegemon” throughout the rest of the world was it’s technological/military superiority.
I think cowgirl touches upon a key element - what does one mean when we talk about “civilization” or “development?”
I don’t think many scholars would dispute that corruption hasn’t been a major problem in the region. But something to consider - has the level of corruption throught Sub-Saharan Africa been the same throughout its history? I think that if one studies the history of the region more thoroughly, that the level of rampant corrption that exists in the region today can be traced backed to aspects pertaining to the European colonial period.
To be sure, much of the “modern” infrastructure that exists is a direct result of European intervention (both good and bad aspects). However, to state that no infractructure existed prior to European colonization is mistaken. There were extensive trade routes throughout much of Africa. The key here is that most of major trade routes (and infrastructure supporting that trade) was internal. With the advent of European colonization, those former trade routes/infrastructure were largely destroyed/neglected in favor of the infrastructure put in place by the Europeans. The Europeans were more concerned in creating transportation routes/infrastructure that allowed the extraction of raw materials from the colony to be sent to a port city. From there, the raw materials were shipped back to Europe to be turned into finished products. What we see today in many of these countries is a transport infrastructure geared towards the extraction of raw materials for export outside of Africa.
Not to nitpick, but I believe the OP was the opposite of your premises (as true as it may be).
Standards of ‘success’ are always subjective. The debate here seems to define success as issues of
wealth and political stability.
As for my 2 cents, I find the fact that Africa as a continent, not just a country, lags behind the
West to be a critical fact. Its not just the sub-Saharan region, it’s the whole continent that suffers.
Yes, there are numerous dictators and despots who have hoarded the countries wealth to the
people’s detriment, also AIDS, lack of natural resources and colonialism/tribalism have held back
political reforms. But IMHO – the root of these issues go beyond those generally recognized
facts.
It has been my firmly held belief (and the subject of my college honors thesis in Political
Science) that the success of a government system is beholdent to the custom and religion of a
populace. Namely, if the government system doesn’t mesh with the society, then the system will
fail, or be altered to fit the societies recognized custom. Japan is a good example – you copy the
US constitution and Japan makes it into a one party system of 50-60 years. This falls in line with
the Japanese social pressure to avoid the appearance of dispute. I have many other examples (e.g
Indonesia and Thailand) - but they would run on for 60-80 ppg.
I must state that I do not believe that democracy, socialism and/or dictatorship are the best
systems for Africa. A continental oligarchy might succeed since it would allow for coordination
to assisting with resource problems and infrastructure issues. Also it could reduce the opportunity
for corruption and bias, since an interdependency would be created. There was once a move
towards a pan-african government, but that was scuttled when no one could reach agreement.
Still, a the notion of a greater African state might provide the needed unity and economic
coordination which could assist with overall growth.
Cardinal…This is possibly only worth one cent, not two:
I have a friend who did Peace Corps time in Tanzania. I got the impression from him that most of the problems in his area stemmed from:
Even if your post played heavly on assumption, it was indeed an entertaining read…Having read the Poison Wood Bible and then coming away with just a furtive notion on how African tribal mindsets mesh with western ideology(the book’s focus being the blind christian missonary zeal in opposition to common sense Tribalisim) I not so sure that cleaning the weeds out of the ditch today is such a good idea.
The problem is that such a sweeping claim is not accurate. The Guinea Coast was home to several African Kingdoms that were not much “behind” Europe. Assuming that Europe was going to colonize the world, anyway, an approach toward colonization that more nearly resembled the approaches used in India and Southeast Asia, including the use of the local educated class to supply manpower to the colonial bureaucracy and the investment in genuine infrastructure, including manufacturing, rather than simply building networks to extract resources and people, would have left Africa in a much better position. It was not merely colonization, but the unique variety of colonialism that harmed Africa. We see many of the same problems in South America where Spain practiced a similar method of colonialism. South America is now “ahead” of Africa only to the extent that that form of colonialism had been practiced much earlier in its history, so that it has had some time to develop beyond that point.
This is a classic case of taking something out of context, if I ever saw one!
[ul] [sup]Then again, maybe it is simply twisting words for one’s own purpose.[/sup][/ul]
I know that you did not mean it this way, but there is a danger that this could be used as an excuse to do nothing and expect very little.
Some very good points in your post. Welcome to the board. Stick around and help fight my ignorance. 
I understand your feeling sad cowgirl but think of it this way. Those other threads survive because there is considerable disagreement on the issue. Except for a couple of blurps, there has been little disagreement that there are problems in Africa that need our attention. Having said that I will admit that I had skipped over it many times before taking a look and that is a problem.
There is a common thread running through this and what Abe User posted. This same thought bothers me, when everyone says that Iraq and other countries in the Middle East need to become democracies.