I agree with these suggestions. The only caveat I’d add is that I think unconditional free trade is a bad idea. It has to be tied in with some meaningful agreements on working conditions. Otherwise you’re just forcing responsible business owners to compete against the most irresponsible sweatshop owners.
It’s not ‘cultural disruption’ that hurts Natives - it’s the culture of dependency created by government support.
This is a constant you can see anywhere - any place where people are divorced from the consequences of their own actions, or where they are prevented from taking action for their own benefit, you find misery and despair. You see it in the inner cities in the U.S., on the native reservations in Canada, in Palestine, in unassimilated muslim communities in France… Here in Canada, we heavily subsidize the maritimes fishing industries, and have thereby created a culture of dependency that leads to a poor economy and dissatisfied people. In the middle east, the same effect is created by oil money, which removes the need to be efficient and to grow a diverse economy. So tyrants flourish. The same happens with heavy subsidization of Africa.
Get rid of the subsidization in Africa, and lower barriers to trade and help build the kinds of institutions, laws, and civil society that protects property rights and encourages cooperation, and the prosperity will follow.
Even without such knowledge, it seems possible, in theory, to assess cultural disruption.
For example, tomndebb proposed looking, among other things, at language and religion. By this standard, the Philippines has suffered a tremendous amount of cultural disruption.
In theory, one could assess the amount of “cultural disruption” for various post-colonial areas to see if sub-Saharan Africa suffered significantly more “cultural disruption” than places like the Philippines. If not, then the “cultural disruption” hypothesis should arguably be discarded.
Sam Stone makes some excellent points. But how these programs or philosophies are to change, I can’t say. That they are “wrong” and harmful, seems obvious to me. But to abruptly alter the situation? More disruption.
Africa is a special case. Every case is a special case, I suppose.
I think that cultural disruption and the slave trade and the constants of geography and climate and modern communications and all the rest are such a poisonous stew that there is simply no obvious answer.
That’s exactly the wrong attitude. Africa’s comparative advantage is cheap labor. That’s it. Any conditions you put on trade that makes labor more expensive will decrease trade, and therefore slow the influx of capital needed to make permanent improvements.
The bottom rung of the ladder to prosperity is a pretty sucky place to be, no doubt about it. But if you cut that rung off, you remove all hope that things will get better. If you allow the sweatshops, you’ll start seeing infrastructure get built. Infrastructure brings wealth. As the infrastructure improves the productivity of the factories will go up. That in turn will drive up wages. That’s what happened in India, in China, in South Korea, and it’s happening now in Vietnam.
In a country where the per-capita income is a few hundred dollars a year, *everything is a sweat shop. There’s no way to avoid it. All you can do is accept that as the price of entry to the global economy, or refuse it and condemn the people to subsistence agriculture and starvation.
So what are you saying? Africa has it too easy? Personally, I’d say that the average African is all too familar with the consequences of his country’s problems and doesn’t need to experience them in any more depth.
I disagree. Some times the bottom rung is so low that there’s no chance to reach even the second rung up. No slave ever ended up owning a plantation. If left to no restraint except self-restraint, some owners will simply take everything from their workers and leave them nothing. Working in a sweatshop is not an entry level position - you work there until you die and when you die, you’ll be replaced by somebody who’ll work there until they die. Nobody ever works their way up.
And there is a way to avoid it. It’s what I said - tie trade in to working conditions. I’m not condemning people to “subsistence agriculture and starvation” - your policy does that by accepting those conditions. Mine would lift them up out of it by offering an incentive for choosing to improve conditions.
Sam Stone, I’m not certain that your proposal would function in conjunction with all the other problems in Africa. It looks great on paper, but as Little Nemo pointed out, corporate responsibility is nothing to depend on. Business owners are as a general rule only concerned with their bottom line and how to increase it or keep it stable for as long as possible. Many of the governments are completely corrupt at all levels and barely limp by. it’s not a stretch to imagine that unrestrained free trade would only result in government sanctioned exploitation of the populaces, with little return to the country.
What Africa NEEDS is stability. I’m not certain how we can achieve this, but it will take a lot of work, diplomacy, and time to achieve it. Once there, it is such a fragile thing. The region needs a generation’s time of relative peace, and focus on country-building to lay the foundation for any sort of future.
I’ve had various opinions on the matter, but today I’ll go with tribal cultures. We have the same problem in much of North America north of the Rio Grande. There are hundreds of small tribes who refuse to assimulate into the overall culture and determined to maintain their individuality for fear. This results in stagnation and limits their economic opportunity. I’ve seen a situation that makes Africa look like Utopia. Because sub Saharan Africa had relatively little immigration of displaced people willing to develop a national society they are locked into the past unable to unite and form a national viable economy.
I’m not going to get too invoved in this BUT…
A couple of thousand years B.C. people in the Orkney Islands at the north of Britain were building stone houses with inside restrooms with running water,Sub Saharan Africa never discovered the wheel, the plough,road building,irrigation,or a written language amongst other things.
We have had the expected "Oh its all Whiteys fault because of Slavery "chestnut.
Sorry but enslaving Black Africans is a Black African tradition .
The Europeans adopted it for a while and then discarded it on moral reasons.
Black Africans are still enslaving other Black Africans even today,in Mauretania and west Africa generally and in east Africa where they tend to sell the ones that they do not need for their own uses to Saudi Arabians.
The parts of Africa colonised by Europeans had a stop to tribal warfare,a severe decrease in murders and rapes and the life expectancy went up ,the chances of new born babies surviving went up dramatically .
So lets cut the crap about just about ALL the sub Saharan nations being corrupt ,violent basket cases because of the nasty white people.
They have had more then long enough as independant nations to start taking responsibility for their own actiions.
We in the West have literally given Africa Trillions of dollars ,yes I did say Trillions,and they are still living in the Iron Age,still at the stage that England was at when julius Caeser invaded.
After WW2 Europe east and west was pretty much devestated ,thanks to the yanks with the Marshall aid plan and our own hard work we got our selves up and running again as amongst the most developed societies on Earth within a very few years.
Africa ?
Dont make me laugh.
Honestly I think if it’s a choice between Colonial rule and current self-rule, the African nations were better off under Colonial administration. Maybe that really is the only solution to this mess. Rhodesia was a great success economically and the standard of living was the highest in Africa.
Would you say the same for the United States? As in - a history of slavery has little to do with the current discrepancy between Black and White in terms of e.g. economics and incarceration rates, including those areas that were not traditionally slaveholding (say, the West)?
(I’m the OP). Thanks for all your responses - its been very interesting reading.
(my bolding)
Really? The situation in the USA north of the Rio Grande (I’m assuming we’re talking about the south, not Colorado) is as bad as Africa? I’d like to know more about that.
Cite?
Africans Choose! Democide under uncaring dictatorial self-rule rule or Democide under uncaring dictatorial foreign rule.
Most people don’t even consider this really a valid question.
Lust4Life - I do agree with your post.
Sub Saharan Africa was the cradle of life, so they certainly have had plenty of time, yet they seem to have never moved beyond a certain point in their development. I’m not sure what you need to develope a stable civilisation, but the items you list would seem to be prerequisites.
Africa got a raw deal ecologically, giving them a shit poor starting point. As mentioned at various points, Jared Diamond does a better job explaining this than anyone in this thread will.
OK, so post-contact modern technology has been introduced, so why haven’t they caught up? That’s like taking a hunter-gatherer tribesman and throwing him into New York for a week and asking why he hasn’t become an accountant yet.
Yes, a lot of Africans are culturally backwards if that’s what some you of are desperate to hear, but it’s not without reason.
What they are desperate to hear is that Africans are defective; that they are created defective; born that way.
When numerous points posted by posters in this thread are hand-waved away…points that require people look at human history honestly and in the totality of human development and failures of all nations; tells me that people are trying to find any reason to believe that the state of Africa is because something is fundamently wrong with Africans as group and that the failures of Africa would not happen to any other group had they been in the same position.
In other words, had you transported those people in the Orkney Islands at the north of Britain into Sub Saharan Africa; they would have built stone houses with inside restrooms with running water there.
Now if you really believe that to be true, then you know nothing of the geography there. If you believe that to be true, despite knowing the geography there, then you are in effect saying that there is something fundamentally different using whatever matrix you wish to between the Europeans and Africans.
And that thinking is a big part of what helped create the mess that is Africa today.
Now if you, like me believe that environment plays a big part in how a society evolves, then you need to evaluate if the Britions would have had the same results that the Africans did and I think they would have), then we need to examine and I don’t know if you can, what exact cultural, geographical issues etc. can make the difference.
As noted, Jared Diamond does a good job of explaining that it’s not some genetic defective code, but randomness of geography and fate.
YMMV, of course.
Bingo, although I did learn a lot in this thread from some of the more informative members of this forum.
So what? They did independently discover agriculture and iron working, neither of which people in Orkney did for themselves.
The only person to mention Whitey was me, and that was a joke. No-one’s blamed slavery just on whites.
From the beginning of history to the 1800s is not “a while”
Does that include the Belgian Congo? How do you think the chances of Herero and Nama babies stood in German South West Africa? Your opinion of the benefits of colonialism run counter to the facts, man.
This is a textbook strawman argument.
30-40 years trumps 100s? I guess… Israeli Jews and American Blacks should also just shut up, too, then. I mean, the Holocaust? Lynchings? Get over it! Soooo 50 years ago.
And you took quadrillions. Yes I did say quadrillions. In materials and in lives.
This is a very …wrong …view of Africa. There may be bits of Africa like that, I guess, but then there are naked jungle folk in South America and New Guinea too, so it proves nothing. Most of Africa is a hellhole yes, but it’s not as backward as that.
Yeah, I remember when a Marshall Plan was tried in Africa…wait, when was that again?
All the West does for Africa is dribble aid and money (often at the wrong people) and take, take, take its resources. If Western governments followed something more like Sam Stone’s outline, they’d have more room to criticise.
If that is true, then any and all attempts to change conditions are doomed to failure, so why bother? Save trillions of dollars worldwide and untold billions of man-hours of effort. Is that the answer? I don’t think so.