Funny how most of the poor nations are in the tropics, while developed nations are in temperate areas. Not just in Africa, but in Asia and Latin America.
Since several people have mentioned Switzerland in this post, I will throw in a few facts about Swiss history:
Switzerland was originally “founded” in 1291 by several groups of small villagers deciding to reject the Austrian nobility that claimed authority over their territory. The country slowly formed over a period of approximately five centuries through two mains:
a) Surrounding cities / territories voluntarily asking to join the Swiss confederation, and
b) equally as important, conquest of surrounding territories that were then governed jointly by the conquering cantons (canton = state in Switzerland.)
The last territorial acquisition by Switzerland was the admittance of some french-speaking cantons in the western part of the country in 1814 : Genève (as mentioned above), Vaud and Neuchâtel.
But don’t think that the union of swiss cantons is a story unblemished by discord. In their expansionary phase (until 1515) there were many disagreements amongst cantons about which wars to indicate, and it was common for two of the cantons making up the country to engage in a small war with none of the other cantons participating. In addition, there were many conflicts over language and religion in the history of the country. As a matter of fact there was a civil war for religious reasons as recently as 1847-1848 opposing catholics and protestants. The war ended with the creation of a new swiss constitution (modelled on the american constitution) that created a stronger federal government.
An example of the language conflicts can be seen by the formation of a new canton (Jura) in 1970, with the new canton being formed by a secession of most of the french-speaking communes (towns) from the canton of Bern (which is in majority german-speaking).
“Specification of conditions is not explaining away, rather we are defining the phenomena.”
To avoid getting in an argument over semantics, let me say that I’m also skeptical of theories that require a lot of specification of conditions, particularly when such specification is used to distinguish evidence that undermines the (more general) theory.
A general theory is only possible when one has a proper command of the specifics. When one over-generalizes simply in order to achieve a general theory one gets no where. If you are building on say hard sciences, note that one controls or tries to control for other variables. That is quite simply impossible in this realm. Ergo, one has to carefully define those variables and attempt to make sure one is comparing truly similar phenomena.
In terms of what you wish to examine, I would suggest that one would be best served by attempting to compare countries whose modern borders approach those of pre-colonial entities with those which do not. One has to control for other variables (thus the specificity, else its rather like using dirty petri dishes.) One might profitably compare the situation to that of say researchers attempting to discover whether chemical compound X causes cancer Y in humans in the environment. We might know what controlled lab results are (something we don’t have for historical/sociological situations) but we don’t know and can not know (in general) the environmental interactions which might effect the results.
The specification of conditions is thus the proper and in fact sole method of achieving something approaching control of variables. Of course, just as in any sort of experiment, one can critique the conditions (or control or lack of for other variables.). I don’t think you can raise valid objections to the simple fact that, for example, I have advanced specific conditions.
However, one can advance critiques of those conditions. In that manner we might find out if it is really necessary to differentiate (or necessary in fact to differentiate more). Do I need to differentiate between a lemon and a lime? Maybe, maybe not. What about an apple and a lime? All this depends on the situation.
So, again, I do think it is proper to specify and I do think you have reached the point in the argument where you should advance if not your own explanation at least some alternative method of dealing with the data.
On Climate:
There might be something to this, but not all of Africa is tropical. Complicated question. Certainly environment plays an underlying role and I do think Jared Diamond’s * Guns Germs and Steel* is an interesting treatment of that as a background.
Why waste time? There’s already one on this thread!
Your right, you are so superior to all of us.
Give me a break!
Actually, that’s about a MILLENIUM or two before Africa that the Ancient Greeks started democracy but I’ll spot you a few thousand years because I’m that kind of guy.
And I do appreciate the edit.
Oooooh! Aren’t WE snooty today?
Yeah. It’s a shame the job at the local weekly free paper didn’t work out. Yet another great journalist kept down by the Man! BASTARDS!!!
Are we still harping on our sources? I repeat: Dude TRAVELLED to Africa to research his book. I respect that as much as I do any Ivory Tower tightass with a fancy degree. Anyway, let’s move on. I’m tired of defending the credibility of an 8 time Pulitzer Prize winner. And my guess is you are tired of defending the credibility of these accredited scholars.
Not that I attacked them in any way.
Well, of course. You are so much better than the rest of us.
**
[/quote]
Look, for chrissakes. All I am saying is that your sources are well informed too. This has turned into a debate over who is more informed about Africa. We don’t agree. I’m trying to build you a golden bridge of escape here so we can move on to other issues and still be friends.
Geez, it just does not pay to be a good guy anymore.
“I don’t think you can raise valid objections to the simple fact that, for example, I have advanced specific conditions.”
Well, perhaps the fruit analogy will illustrate my objections.
Suppose the original question was “Why are lemons so sour?”
And suppose that, for whatever reason, we don’t have labs, petri dishes, genetic techniques, anything to experiment with fruits besides cutting them open and tasting them. Further, there is a universe of only 10 or so fruits, so it’s impossible to separate out all the various fruit variables. (Of course, we include peaches and kiwi fruit. Thus, the situation is somewhat “fuzzy.”)
Now, somebody might advance a theory about lemons and sourness. For example, they might claim that lemons are sour because they have seeds. Obviously, this is plainly ridiculous, but it is a theory, and can be “tested,” even without a lab, by discussing other fruits.
For example, I might say - “what about strawberries - they have seeds, and are not sour.”
This is evidence that the theory is incorrect, but somebody who is pushing the theory might respond “well, strawberries have their seeds on the outside - so you’re really comparing apples and oranges.”
And so on. Ultimately, I might ask, “is there ANY fruit besides lemons that has seeds and is sour?” If the answer is “no,” then the theory has been specified to the point where it’s pretty lame, IMHO.
I agree that some theories are too general, and that in the social sciences, you have to be “fuzzier.” Even so, in any field, IMHO, a theory can become over-qualified. And you can call this “specifiying conditions,” “explaining away evidence,” or whatever you want. At a certain point, the theory just becomes lame.
And the “artificial borders” theory has become too qualified for me not to be skeptical of it.
I do not know nearly as much about African history as many of you, but I will add my opinion anyway, since I am somewhat knowledgable of the topic.
I studied Africa from a socio-economic view, not political. I gethered from my research that Africa’s poverty is derived from their supposed gap in modernization. It was not called the “Dark” continent just because most of it’s citizens were black - little was known about Africa at the beginning of the twentieth century. When explorers and investors realized that there was a continent with little industrialization that was, by all standards, archaic, it made sense to try to “enlighten” Africans. However, in the attempts in doing so, these intruders only brought more problems upon the country. It’s been mentioned that health care created longer lives, which made it harder to produce enough food. Democracy infiltrated tribal command. The population jumped, and the environment was not made to sustain a huge population (deserts and jungles do not make for easy living).
I don’t think the situation in Africa was terribly different from that of Russia: small, relatively unknown or distant groups (Bolsheviks; superpowers like France and the US) overthrew the existing government(s). Most people simply accepted their previous leadership (Tsars; tribal rule) and did not know how to function under their new government, and neither’s people were actually in any way in touch with the new government. The gov’ts became bureaucratized and further lost touch with the people, attempts at coup d’etats were made but failed due to strong military force, and eventually the rule crumbled. A perfect example of this is Mobutu, who made what was once the Congo into a totalitarian state. Dissenters from all sides fought him after the death of Patrice Lumumba and throughout Mobutu’s reign, but were constantly put down by force.
From a political viewpoint, Eisenhower did play a part in killing Patrice Lumumba, who was elected as president of the Congo in 1959 (or possibly 1958, I’m not sure). Mobutu was “placed” in office as a bastion of democracy, at the cost of Congolese freedom and liberty. Pretty pathetic when you think about it - men with such power at their fingertips drew their sight on a nation that could not even sustain it’s own population, let alone big industry overseas.
The moment in time when Africa became a “token” in world affairs (as early as the late 1800’s) was when her downward path was determined.
Also, the moment racial issues were born (this could go as far back as the dawn of time, with the children of Ham, if you read the Bible), and the white folk decided they were superior to Africans, a misbalance of power occurred. I can see why Europeans thought Africans were ignorant, because of their lack of industrialization and modernization, but to subjugate an entire race because of it - this did not help Africa’s chance at fairly competing with world powers either, eonomically or politically.
Ugly, don’t be so touchy…
I answered the question. Apparently you did not understand. But I’ll try again.
(1) We do find records of democratic or consultative assemblies in Africa so the very way the question is posed is wrong
(2) Ancient Greek democracy, limited to essentially one city state, was not a pan-European event and for the largest portion of European history, European society was not characterized by this democracy, although certainly tribal councils existed. In fact these consultative traditions are as much a genuine source of modern democracy as the classicist gloss.
So, unless you pretend that a thousand of years of non-democratic government, make that roughly two, did not exist, you’re point is absolutely senseless. Democracy wins out in Europe in the past century only.
I’m not superior to anyone. Chill.
As pointed out above, this is a logical fallacy (of composition: some ancient Greeks briefly had democracy therefore all Greeks were democratic therefore Europeans were democratic.). Moreover, as noted, Africa itself is not devoid of consultative government, and given the character of actual Athenian government (democracy of the elite), the real difference might in fact be that the Greeks elaborated a theory of democracy, not that Athens was more democratic than any other place on earth. Some surely, all surely not.
I worked for an international news agency on the international desk, a small step up from the weekly paper but what the heck. The sole point is to indicate I am familiar with the man’s background and work from an insider’s point of view.
He worked in Africa as a journalist. That makes him a source for the time period he worked. I see no sign that he did serious research or understood the background of what he saw. Indeed his generalizations are just plain wrong on the facts. As I said, I am working and travelling through the Mid East, that does not make me an authority on Mid East issues, even if I wrote an article about it.
No I’m not tired. Despite your slurs against respected academics, most African specailists spend years doing research in the field. Unlike say Europeanist counterparts, they have to get their hands dirty cause things are just not convienient in Africa. I respect that, done on weeny budgets, a lot more than a cushy well-paid journalist on major assignments flitting around Africa on an expense account and duping himself into thinking he knows more than he does. Pulitzer Prizes are for journalistic reporting, not for knowing about Africa, and frankly the standard for reporting on Africa is piss poor.
Hmm, tight ass ivory tower blah blah is a compliment? Spare me.
Sources are important. Lamb is credible for what he saw. Not being someone with a background in the region, preconceptions and frankly misconceptions color his reporting as well as his writing. As a journalist he has to work with that, there are deadlines to meet. As an author there are different standards. I’m unimpressed by his work as you have described it and would myself rely on works better informed, by academics who’ve done hard work in Africa itself on the shoe string academic budgets.
Africa was not “discovered” in the late 19th century. Europeans had been in contact with the coastal nations and peoples for a good 400 years. And of course Muslims from the Middle East had been trading with the interior states for a thousand years. The “Darkness” was mostly a romantic Victorian invention to help justify profit and power driven drives to the interior. The timing of colonization was more or less defined by advances in medicine (coastal zones were bad mojo for Europeans not resistant to the diseases) and advances in technology (can we say repeating rifles)?. Note, some Sahelian African states had artisanal guns (hand made, from designs copied from the Ottoman Turks with whom they traded through Libya for example.) although most guns were had from European traders – cheaper and better quality.
Enlightenment was nothing more than a post-facto justification for colonization – and precious little of it was done. There are ample European records from earlier centuries (as for example the Portuguese) reflecting an entirely different understanding of Africa than the one which emerged by the early 1900s.
This is something which has occured in the last 30 years, since the 1960s and has little to do colonialization per se.
???
I would take a look at a climatological map of Africa. Deserts and Jungles does not describe all of Africa, nor even the mostly densely inhabited parts.
I don’t see any comparision. Bolsheviks represent an internal force to Russia, a civil war brought them to power, not outside powers (leaving aside German assistance getting Lenin to Russia, but there was still Trotsky…).
Rubbish. Tsarist rule was already crumbling in 1917 and Russia had experienced many revolts against the system (although none before 1905 which rejected the Tsar). As for ‘tribal rule’ I don’t see the sense in this. Never mind actual ‘tribal’ systems of government are usually consultative, it ignores the other forms of government --Republics, Empires (now there we have Uglies authoritarianism), kingdoms etc.
Sometime during the slave trade racism emerged, by the early 19th century. The Ham story etc. is something read back into the situation. As noted above, one can read early Dutch and Portuguese accounts of trade and embassies to African states which are unmarked by racism (as opposed to old fashioned self-centeredness).
I’M NOT BEING TOUCHY! WHOSE CALLING ME TOUCHY! :mad:**
[quote]
I respectfully disagree.**
You are very lucky my St. John’s Wort just kicked in. :)**
Whatever. Aaaaah. I see elephants. Where am I . . more . . St. . . John’s . . Wort . . .**
I sit corrected. You worked for a smalltown weekly newspaper- in Umbrellastan!**
I refuse to continue any debate on this issue, as stated in my last post.**
What slurs? I said nothing derogatory about those no good, low down rotten African specialists!**
OH YEAH! WELL I THINK . . . .OOps! I fogot. I’m not debating you on this anymore. .**
Nope. Not going to do it. Your not going to get to me. 1-2-3-4-5- . . . . :mad:
**
Actually, from me, that was a compliment.**
Wow. You are actually giving in a little? Do I see a glimmer of hope there?**
You are repeating yourself.You are repeating yourself.You are repeating yourself.You are repeating yourself.
Calm down, screaming does you no good, we’re not in a school yard. By the way, just to offer some more editorial assistance, it’s who’s not whose.
Based on what facts? Care to tell me about the democratic features of European society (be specific now) between 400 BC and 1500 AD? The raging currents of Athenian democracy which you seem to feel were so evident? Quite simply the Athenian oligarchy (drapped in the mantle of democracy) did not really effect the rest of Europe (which was quite ignorant of the whole concept until relatively recently).
For example, quite frankly I would seek the roots of English democracy, which emerges through the 18th and 19th century as oligarchic rule slowly become a real democracy, as well as American democratic ideals, as much in the preservation in England of old Anglo-Saxon consultative traditions as the product of the theoretical justifications of reworked Athenian models. But those consultative models are essentially the same kind of ‘tribal’ consultations as Africans clearly had – not clearly democratic, but certainly possessing features which were reworked later on into democracy.
I didn’t see much debate to begin with, just assertions. Why you’re so emotionally involved with Lamb’s erroneous assertions about the historical roots of what he saw in his African tour I don’t know.
Always good to see someone with such an intriguingly juvenile debating style.
That was my analysis from the beginning, if you had been reading instead of ranting. Really, you should drink less coffee and do some more reading.