Africa

fischerspooner

Why do you think there is so much poverty and corruption in all of the african countries? Can it be blamed on colonialism? Why is it that South Africa is the only country that resembles a civilised nation, is it merely a coincidence that the country has a large population of european descent? Are African blacks unable to live in western style democracies? It really puzzles me why not one of the countries (that I am aware of) can manage itself properly. What are your views on this?

bonkey

fischerspooner wrote:

Why is it that South Africa is the only country that resembles a civilised nation

Which Africa are you looking at? The continent-defined one with Egypt and other North African nations in it, or some tuncated version where they get defined as "Mediterranean" or "Middle-Eastern" despite the continent they're on?

If its the latter, could you define it. If its the former, maybe you could explain what, exactly is uncilvised about some of the more northern nations?

jc

fischerspooner

ok yes I should probably exclude all of the mediterranean african nations, they seem ok compared to the sub-saharan countries.

bonkey

So what you're really asking is

"When we exclude the richer, more civilised regions of Africa, why is it that the remainder are poor, corrupt and uncivilised" ???

Its a fair qusetion, but I'd ask why you're singling out Africa. Why not ask that question about Asia? Or the Americas? Or Europe? Or the world in general?

Zombrex

fischerspooner wrote:

Can it be blamed on colonialism?

Put simply, yes, for a number of reasons -

1 - Time: Don't forget that most African colonies only became independent states in the later half of the 20th Century.

2 - Borders: Often the borders of these countries were draw up by their European masters, which means you get countries with two ethinic groups that hate each other (think what would happen if tomorrow half of Germany was suddenly in France).

3 - Power vacuum: The colonial powers didn't exactly spend a lot of time developing indigenous systems of government while they were there. When they left it greated a power vacuum, which as history has taught us is more than likely filled by a oppressive power.

4 - Poverty: Again colonial powers did little to establish proper economies and infrastructure systems in these countries. So when they left the countries were left with terrible infrastructure and little money to improve that situation. Instead of giving money (like the EU did to Ireland), the international community has piled on loan after loan so these countries fall into huge interest debt. This also isn't help by the fact that a lot of the countries have corrupt governments that aren't interested in funnelling the money to the people that actually need it.

fischerspooner wrote:

Why is it that South Africa is the only country that resembles a civilised nation

Firstly I am not sure what you mean by "resemble a civilised nation" Most African countries resemble civilised nations.

Secondly, the reason South Africa is doing better economicall and social than other countries is that, due to the presents of white settlers, the colonial powers that ran the country, and also the white settlers that later broke away, were actually interested in developing things like infrastructure and economy (for themselves of course, not for the native blacks). So S.A was not as neglected as other African countries by the "powers that be". Of course thats if you are white, if you were a black South African you had and still have a pretty uncivilised time about it, because up until 15 years ago, no one that had much power in S.A gave a rats ass about you.

fischerspooner wrote:

Is it merely a coincidence that the country has a large population of european descent?

Nope, where the white european settlers are thats where you will find the investment, socially and economically.

fischerspooner wrote:

Are African blacks unable to live in western style democracies?

No reason to believe this, their exists a number of democracies in Africa.

A better question would be "Are European countries unable or unwilling to establish long lasting democracies in the countries the meddle in?" My answer would be yes. Obviously the current American and British governments haven't learnt that lession from history.

fischerspooner wrote:

It really puzzles me why not one of the countries (that I am aware of) can manage itself properly. What are your views on this?

Sure we (Ireland) can't manage ourself properly, and we have been a proper independent democracy for nearly 90 years!! And relatively speaking we were f**ked around a lot less by the British Empire than a lot of the African countries, a lot of who only gained independence recently. We also had the E.U to bail us out of our rather dreadful infrastructure problem (which is still crap)

Zombrex

fischerspooner wrote:

they seem ok compared to the sub-saharan

Again, settlers and investment from, first the Ottoman empire and later the European empires. Also oil. Also revolutions against European masters (such as Algeria kicking out the French in 1954) tends to lead to less of a power vacuum than when a colonial country simply hands back power. This doesn't produce good governments (a lot of them are dictators) but it can lead to less tribal fighting like you see in sub-saharan Africa

Nuttzz

Zimbabwe anyone? Is that the fault of colonialism?

411% inflation, dysentery begining to spread, people starving, homes levelled?

Very different to how it was in 10 years ago

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

Zimbabwe anyone? Is that the fault of colonialism?

Its due to a history of war, AIDS (1 in 4 have HIV, and it has the highest infection rate in the world), corrupt government, and cronic mismanagement ... some of that can be linked back to conlonialism (its only been 25 years since independence), other problems our more modern

jank

A good question.

My friend has discussed this with me a few times wondering why its still such a mess out there.

The above points are very valid but look at India? They are only indepenant 50 years if that. They had a hard time being where they are now with all the friction with Pakistan but they are now one of the biggest growing economys in the world, a nuclear power too and a future super power.

Yes they still have savage poverty but look at their emerging middle classes.

Maybe it can be summed up in one word.
Discipline.

Nuttzz

Wicknight wrote:

Its due to a history of war, AIDS (1 in 4 have HIV, and it has the highest infection rate in the world), corrupt government, and cronic mismanagement ... some of that can be linked back to conlonialism (its only been 25 years since independence), other problems our more modern

Really? The place was doing alright until Robert got a rush of blood to the head

Zombrex

jank wrote:

The above points are very valid but look at India? They are only indepenant 50 years if that. They had a hard time being where they are now with all the friction with Pakistan but they are now one of the biggest growing economys in the world, a nuclear power too and a future super power.

Thats because they have a stable government with a huge well trained work force

These things don't just happen, they happy due to proper management of government, education and infrastructure.

jank wrote:

Discipline.

Look, I have been trying very hard not to assume people are being racist in this dicussion. But really, are we going to start summing up an entire continent in a few easy to understand (but completely over simplified) responses such as Africa is in a bad way because they (black people, I assume) aren't discipled?

The economic and social reasons for each African countries situation is unique, long and complex

I think people should be more interested in why we have such a distored view of Africa. I remember watching and interview with an African who came to work in London around the first Live Aid concert (this was in one of the looking-back-at-live-aid programs you had in the run up to the Live 8), who was quite puzzled at the way "Africa" as a general entity, was protraited in western media. People assumed he lived in a mud hut with his "tribe" and were surprised when they found out he could read and write (he was actually a doctor)

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

But really, are we going to start summing up an entire continent in a few easy to understand (but completely over simplified) responses such as Africa is in a bad way because they (black people, I assume) aren't discipled?

Once you limit it to sub-Saharan Africa (whatever that is), its only about half a continent being generalised.

Thats not so bad surely

jc

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

1 - Time: Don't forget that most African colonies only became independent states in the later half of the 20th Century.

That’s true of most colonies; it’s only the sub-Saharan African ones that have been consistently basket cases.

2 - Borders: Often the borders of these countries were draw up by their European masters, which means you get countries with two ethinic groups that hate each other (think what would happen if tomorrow half of Germany was suddenly in France).

Actually, half of Germany is currently in Poland.

3 - Power vacuum: The colonial powers didn't exactly spend a lot of time developing indigenous systems of government while they were there. When they left it greated a power vacuum, which as history has taught us is more than likely filled by a oppressive power.

That does not explain how fifty years later that vacuum remains.

4 - Poverty: Again colonial powers did little to establish proper economies and infrastructure systems in these countries.

Hold on, there were no proper economies and infrastructure systems in these ‘countries’ prior to colonialism. So had there been no colonialism and what few economies and infrastructure systems that were established had not been, then would it still be the fault of colonialism?

Or are you saying that Africa would have changed the habits of the last few millennia and developed these spontaneously of its own volition in the course of the nineteenth century?

Firstly I am not sure what you mean by "resemble a civilised nation" Most African countries resemble civilised nations.

By what standards?

No reason to believe this, their exists a number of democracies in Africa.

At any one time there exists a number of democracies in Africa, and a few years later you’ll find a completely different number of democracies in Africa.

A better question would be "Are European countries unable or unwilling to establish long lasting democracies in the countries the meddle in?" My answer would be yes.

So what? Countries meddle with each other, get used to it.

Sure we (Ireland) can't manage ourself properly, and we have been a proper independent democracy for nearly 90 years!! And relatively speaking we were f**ked around a lot less by the British Empire than a lot of the African countries, a lot of who only gained independence recently.

Utter Rubbish. Up until the discovery of vaccination and the end of the Napoleonic wars Europe had only a few disease ridden costal colonies in sub-Saharan Africa - the vast bulk of the continent hadn’t even been traversed, let alone colonised. In total Europe’s colonial period in Africa lasted far less than in Ireland and accordingly the influence was far less.

We also had the E.U to bail us out of our rather dreadful infrastructure problem (which is still crap)

Are you comparing our “rather dreadful infrastructure problem” with the plight of sub-Saharan Africa’s problems? Seriously?

Thats because they have a stable government with a huge well trained work force

These things don't just happen, they happy due to proper management of government, education and infrastructure.

Right, and the fact that this was in India and not in Africa was the fault of colonialism, how exactly?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s true of most colonies; it’s only the sub-Saharan African ones that have been consistently basket cases.

South America anyone?

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, half of Germany is currently in Poland.

Didn't Germany go to war with Poland .... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

That does not explain how fifty years later that vacuum remains.

I never said it did, I said the power vacuums are filled by dictators and those with military power, often who have little regard for

The Corinthian wrote:

Hold on, there were no proper economies and infrastructure systems in these ‘countries’ prior to colonialism. So had there been no colonialism and what few economies and infrastructure systems that were established had not been, then would it still be the fault of colonialism?

You assume that Africa, if it has never been colonisied, would just have never developed proper infrastructure? Why exactly?

The Corinthian wrote:

Or are you saying that Africa would have changed the habits of the last few millennia and developed these spontaneously of its own volition in the course of the nineteenth century?

Japan was still a country based on warlords and rival tribes in 1800 ... it seemed to do alright without being invaded and colonialised by Europeans.

Under what assumption are you basing the idea that, if it had never been colonised in the 16-19th centuries, Africa would still be where it was 300 years ago today?

The Corinthian wrote:

By what standards?

Civilised standards

The Corinthian wrote:

At any one time there exists a number of democracies in Africa, and a few years later you’ll find a completely different number of democracies in Africa.

And? You found that in Europe 50 years ago (when last dictor in Europe removed? The 70s), and you find it in South America at the moment too.

The Corinthian wrote:

So what? Countries meddle with each other, get used to it.

Get used to it? Is that a joke?

The Corinthian wrote:

Utter Rubbish.
...
accordingly the influence was far less.

What are you basing that on? Modern Africa was defined by Europeans. It would be like if the British had made up new counties of Ireland.

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you comparing our “rather dreadful infrastructure problem” with the plight of sub-Saharan Africa’s problems? Seriously?

I am saying that government missmanagement of infrastructure and resources isn't localised to black people in Africa.

The Corinthian wrote:

Right, and the fact that this was in India and not in Africa was the fault of colonialism, how exactly?

Did I say it was?

Karl Hungus

Wicknight wrote:

Japan was still a country based on warlords and rival tribes in 1800 ... it seemed to do alright without being invaded and colonialised by Europeans.

Eh... What are you talking about? In the 1800's the US came with a very large number of battleships, which were far superior to what the Japanese had, and basically demanded a treaty which favoured the US, or else. Japan was practically invaded and colonialised, and this was what led to it's modernization.

Zombrex

Karl Hungus wrote:

Eh... What are you talking about? In the 1800's the US came with a very large number of battleships, which were far superior to what the Japanese had, and basically demanded a treaty which favoured the US, or else. Japan was practically invaded and colonialised, and this was what led to it's modernization.

Japan was not invaded or colonised ... the Harris Treaty was about allowing US ships to dock and refuel in Japan

- Poor Capital & Technology Accumlation
- Lack of Social Capital
- Many African countries aren't actually Nation States. They were just created on an arbitrary basis to suit colonial power. Thus they're not very politically stable.
- 1st world subsidies to domestic industries and tariffs on imports really restrict African countries from helping themselves.
- Debt

and a lot more

im_a_boxa

bess student.

100543

I have to get some vent for all this stuff they're teaching me, it's not like it's going to get me a job or anything.

Now away with you, you're ruining my ricksonesque aura.

mcgarnicle

Wicknight wrote:

Japan was not invaded or colonised ... the Harris Treaty was about allowing US ships to dock and refuel in Japan

It wasn't invaded but it was exploited. The Harris Treaty and subsequent "Unequal Treaties" were the catalyst for Japanese modernisation, which I think is the point that was being made.

swiss

Going back to the Africa question, I think there are several reasons why quite a few African states cannot seem to generate economic growth, their economies having either stagnated or even regressed - making them even poorer.

The main reason would be political mismanagement, IMO, along with the twin pillars of corruption and cronyism. An interesting essay on poverty in Africa seems to agree with this viewpoint.

There are other reasons too of course. I don't believe globalisation or IMF/World Bank stipulations have helped many of these countries. Because of a lack of an export industry, some African states cannot enjoy the benefits of globalisation, yet find their local markets inundated with imported goods. Co-operatives established to help rural communities by establishing some sort of fixed price for their produce have effectively been disbanded. This naturally stymies economic growth in these areas and leads to poverty.

The most interesting question though, is whether colonialism is to blame for the current situation or not. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to comment authoritively in this area, but it seems to me that the answer is "partly". It left in many African states a bitter legacy that seems to be diverting attention away from more immediate issues. A prime example of this would be Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who consistently blames the UK and the US for many of the problems in his country. example

There is also a school of thought that says that the current aid program is exacerbating the problem by making some African states dependent on Foreign Aid, and that more attention should be focussed on making these states more self-reliant. While this is probably true, at the present time it seems unlikely that this will alleviate the problem, due to the economic mismanagement mentioned earlier.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

South America anyone?

Whatever problems South America have or have had, there’s frankly no comparison between it and sub-Saharan Africa.

Didn't Germany go to war with Poland .... :rolleyes:

I said currently. Anyhow, my point is that ethnic divisions and border issues exist everywhere, and they do cause conflict everywhere. However you cannot use this as an excuse for why sub-Saharan Africa is how it is.

I never said it did, I said the power vacuums are filled by dictators and those with military power, often who have little regard for

But that’s not I asked. You seem to be under the misapprehension that because of European colonialism sub-Saharan Africa’s present woes all stem from this. You ignore the despotism that existed prior to Europeans going near sub-Saharan Africa or that it has continued long after we left. If dictators continue to exist there it’s not the fault of the Europeans.

You assume that Africa, if it has never been colonisied, would just have never developed proper infrastructure? Why exactly?

No you do. Your assertion is that European colonialism is at the root of sub-Saharan Africa’s woes. That leads one to ask, had European colonialism never taken place in sub-Saharan Africa, would it really be better off, and if not where does that leave your initial assertion?

Japan was still a country based on warlords and rival tribes in 1800 ... it seemed to do alright without being invaded and colonialised by Europeans.

Japan’s modernisation was a direct reaction to European encroachment, sparked by Convention of Kanagawa in 1854. So it was actually this threat of colonisation that caused it to adapt and modernize.

Under what assumption are you basing the idea that, if it had never been colonised in the 16-19th centuries, Africa would still be where it was 300 years ago today?

There’s no evidence to the contrary.

Civilised standards

I asked you by what standards sub-Saharan African countries are civilised and you respond with this circular argument. Again, by what standards sub-Saharan African countries civilised?

And? You found that in Europe 50 years ago (when last dictor in Europe removed? The 70s), and you find it in South America at the moment too.

Yet the stability of countries, even in South America, is miles ahead of sub-Saharan Africa. How many civil wars in South America? How many in sub-Saharan Africa?

Get used to it? Is that a joke?

No it’s a reality. As much as you’d love the World to hold hands and start singing Cumbia, that’s not going to happen. Diplomatically, economically and, ultimately, militarily countries will meddle with each other, as long as countries exist.

What are you basing that on? Modern Africa was defined by Europeans. It would be like if the British had made up new counties of Ireland.

Modern Africa was hardly defined by Europeans. Do you actually think that if they redefined the borders it would change anything?

I am saying that government missmanagement of infrastructure and resources isn't localised to black people in Africa.

No one said it was. However sub-Saharan Africa is in a league of it’s own in terms of this mismanagement.

Did I say it was?

Then why cite the example?

edanto

There's no doubt that corrupt regimes and wars are devastating Africa. Also, a lot of their problems stem from things we've (collectively, rich countries) done.

Take debt - all those post oil-crisis petrodollars were lent to developing countries at very low rates. Then the depression in the west sent interest rates through the roof and kicked off the debt crisis of the eighties. Sure the poor countries were reckless to borrow so much, but the US-owned World Bank shouldn't have thrown money at them. Then, those debts were reorganised and the WB insisted on 'Structural Adjustment Polices'.

On the face of it, these policies impose fiscal restraint, but in reality it leads to things like user fees on education and healthcare. Just the kind of thing a developing county needs to get out of a downward spiral:rolleyes:

In Tanzania, there was a 96% enrollment rate in primary education in 1976. Then it started to cost money to go to school and today the rate is about 57%. And then if any of those 12 year olds want to carry on to secondary school, it costs more than the average annual income to send a child for each year. I don't think my sisters or I would have gone to secondary if it cost each of us E30,000 a year.

As for aid, wealthy countries are giving less in real terms than they did in the 1960s. Back then, then richest 22 countries gave 0.5% of their GDP, today it's about 0.25%.

And then to trade - I had a thread here a few weeks back about ending subsidies to farmers to make things fairer for faraway farmers. Way overdue, IMO.

World Trade Organisation rules are totally in favour of rich countries. Why is that? Because the rich guys get together in a room, sometimes lock the door (seriously) and decide what they want. 148 members and never a single vote. Just 'agreements' (dictats, more like) that are often the result of lobbying by companies. Cambodia went to join the WTO recently and they were told that they could NEVER have export subsidies and needed to bring in 30 year patents. Do as we say, not as we do....

So, why are the majority of Africans poor and unhealthy? As already pointed out, it's not just Africa, but there's no doubt that the sub-saharan Africa is the poorest region on the planet. I think that is the result of a combination of the above leading to the unsurprising conclusion that the world is unfair and in ways, becoming more unfair.

It's promising that these things are getting so much public attention and hopefully the enthusiasm behind campaigns like Make Povery History will grow in the next few years until things really are fairer. There's also a growing number of people getting involved in volunteer work abroad and bringing home experiences and opinions that point out to us just how unfair the world is and how we can change it.

We could debate all day about the relative contributions of all the different factors causing it - but that's a diversion from the most important goal of finding political solutions.

shotamoose

Great post, edanto. Just wanted to add something on the issue of colonialism.

Like Corinthian said, there were plenty of corrupt and vicious leaders in Africa before major colonisation, so it's not all down to empire. But it clearly did have an effect, and not just in terms of leaving behind insanely arbitrary 'national' boundaries, though that's a huge problem in itself.

There's a school of thought which distinguishes between two main types of colonisation - the type that simply leeches all the resources from a colony while keeping the people under the cosh, and the type that involves colonists settling a country in large numbers, investing there and setting up proper political and bureaucratic institutions. Unfortunately Africa was mostly subjected to the first kind (as was Latin America - India arguably got more of the second kind), which tends to leave behind totally a underdeveloped native economy save for plantations and mines, with the bare minimum of physical infrastructure required to get diamonds or cotton to port, and a small elite political class schooled in the fine arts of subjugating the general population and living off the fat of the land. As Wicknight says, it's no coincidence that South Africa is the richest Sub-Saharan African country, since that was where white colonists settled in the greatest numbers and actually tried to build a developed society.

South Africa also points to another important factor in Africa's development - geography. As a fairly temperate country with great access to ocean trading routes, it's unusual in a continent with more than its fair share of arid, tropical and/or landlocked states. The highest natural disease burden on the planet is obviously a huge disincentive for investment and handicap to Africans' own attempts at development (one reason why Africa suffered from the 'leeching' kind of colonisation was that for a long time half of any group of European settlers would be dead within a year, usually from malaria). The soils are not great in Africa, and it didn't benefit from the 'Green Revolution' in the 20th Century as that was mostly based around crops grown in Asia.

Despite all this, the 60s and 70s were overall a period of very high growth in Africa. It all went pear-shaped in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the oil shock, followed closely by the debt crisis, which had a devestating effect on nearly every African country, especially when coupled with massive drops in their major commodity export prices. The 1980s and 1990s were basically lost decades in terms of African development, but they seem to be starting to turn things around now. They've also made massive strides towards democracy in relatively quick time, although it's no less depressing to see Mugabe and Zenawi's antics just because they're the exception to the rule these days.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Whatever problems South America have or have had, there’s frankly no comparison between it and sub-Saharan Africa.

define "no comparison" ...

The Corinthian wrote:

I said currently. Anyhow, my point is that ethnic divisions and border issues exist everywhere, and they do cause conflict everywhere. However you cannot use this as an excuse for why sub-Saharan Africa is how it is.

"Excuse" ... ? Are we trying to attribute blame here?

The Corinthian wrote:

But that’s not I asked. You seem to be under the misapprehension that because of European colonialism sub-Saharan Africa’s present woes all stem from this.

No, I said it was a factor. Are you saying it wasn't colonisation and its end had no destablising effect on Africa at all?

The Corinthian wrote:

You ignore the despotism that existed prior to Europeans going near sub-Saharan Africa or that it has continued long after we left. If dictators continue to exist there it’s not the fault of the Europeans.

Fault? Again with the blame aspect. It is an issue of cause and effect, not innocent guilty.

Also I really don't understand what you are saying. The rise of dicators in each African country (and each country in general) is based around a uniqe and specific set of circumstances. 300 years ago Europe was riddled with dicators, hell this century we have more than our share. Does that mean Europe also is doomed to repeat over and over a cycle of dicators?

The Corinthian wrote:

No you do. Your assertion is that European colonialism is at the root of sub-Saharan Africa’s woes.

I said it is a serious factor. I was mainly saying that is it is more of a realistic cause than saying black Africans are just undisciplined (lazy too, haven't you heard)

The Corinthian wrote:

That leads one to ask, had European colonialism never taken place in sub-Saharan Africa, would it really be better off, and if not where does that leave your initial assertion?

Define "better off"

The Corinthian wrote:

Japan’s modernisation was a direct reaction to European encroachment, sparked by Convention of Kanagawa in 1854. So it was actually this threat of colonisation that caused it to adapt and modernize.

What ever the reason they did it. Every country that has gone through a process of modernisation has an inital spark that cause this change, including Ireland. There is no reason to believe that black Africans are incapable of this change.

The Corinthian wrote:

There’s no evidence to the contrary.

Or reason to believe in 1800 that Japan would ever become a modern economic power giant in 150 years.

The Corinthian wrote:

I asked you by what standards sub-Saharan African countries are civilised and you respond with this circular argument. Again, by what standards sub-Saharan African countries civilised?

civilised
adj 1: having a high state of culture and development both social and technological;

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet the stability of countries, even in South America, is miles ahead of sub-Saharan Africa. How many civil wars in South America? How many in sub-Saharan Africa?

How many?

The Corinthian wrote:

No it’s a reality. As much as you’d love the World to hold hands and start singing Cumbia, that’s not going to happen. Diplomatically, economically and, ultimately, militarily countries will meddle with each other, as long as countries exist.

You are right, I changed my mind, it is a good thing ... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

Modern Africa was hardly defined by Europeans. Do you actually think that if they redefined the borders it would change anything?

Yes actually, considering the majority of wars in the region are over territory and ethnic tensions.

The Corinthian wrote:

Then why cite the example?

I didn't, the example of India was used to support the idea that an ex-British colony can be doing well only 50 years after the British leave. I was pointing out that the circumstances between India and the majority of African countries is quite different, so comparisions are rather irrelievent and miss-leading.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Excuse" ... ? Are we trying to attribute blame here?

No, you have.

No, I said it was a factor. Are you saying it wasn't colonisation and its end had no destablising effect on Africa at all?

Actually that’s not what you said. You’ve not implied that it was a factor, if anything you have consistently implied that it was the core reason for the state of sub-Saharan Africa.

Fault? Again with the blame aspect. It is an issue of cause and effect, not innocent guilty.

Then read you own posts, they’re little more than simplistic anti-colonial rhetoric. Seemingly all of Africa’s woes can be traced back to European colonialism according to you - or where have you suggested otherwise here?

Also I really don't understand what you are saying. The rise of dicators in each African country (and each country in general) is based around a uniqe and specific set of circumstances. 300 years ago Europe was riddled with dicators, hell this century we have more than our share. Does that mean Europe also is doomed to repeat over and over a cycle of dicators?

Not at all, but neither should we blame it on a third party, which you are doing in sub-Saharan Africa’s case.

I said it is a serious factor.

No you didn’t.

I was mainly saying that is it is more of a realistic cause than saying black Africans are just undisciplined (lazy too, haven't you heard)

Again, no you didn’t.

Define "better off"

More prosperous, with fewer civil and extra-national wars, less corruption, greater education - in short that the various African nations would be if they had modernised.

What ever the reason they did it.

This contradicts your claim that Japan “seemed to do alright without being invaded and colonialised by Europeans” - other than the fact that it was indeed invaded and colonial treaty ports were forced upon her, it was precisely because of this that she did “alright” and not because she was left alone.

Every country that has gone through a process of modernisation has an inital spark that cause this change, including Ireland. There is no reason to believe that black Africans are incapable of this change.

There is unfortunately one very compelling reason. They haven’t.

Or reason to believe in 1800 that Japan would ever become a modern economic power giant in 150 years.

Again there is, in that sub-Saharan Africa is to this day plagued with unstable government and corruption. And the situation is simply not getting markedly any better.

civilised
adj 1: having a high state of culture and development both social and technological;

I’m sorry, but that hardly applies to sub-Saharan Africa.

How many?

Well on the civil wars stakes sub-Saharan Africa is a clear winner. Even if we take a snapshot of global conflict today, sub-Saharan Africa looks like the winner, not only on the number of wars but with the most bloody ones too.

You are right, I changed my mind, it is a good thing ... :rolleyes:

Give us a shout when you pull your head out of the sand.

Yes actually, considering the majority of wars in the region are over territory and ethnic tensions.

Oh, and how do you think they would go about redefining those borders then? :rolleyes:

I didn't, the example of India was used to support the idea that an ex-British colony can be doing well only 50 years after the British leave. I was pointing out that the circumstances between India and the majority of African countries is quite different, so comparisions are rather irrelievent and miss-leading.

However this was not your initial point - which, let me remind you, was Africa’s woes can be blamed on colonialism. So if another country can go through colonialism and come out at the other side (with it’s ups and downs, in fairness) without being a banana republic, and another cannot - is it really the White guy’s fault?

Zombrex

Sigh ... its really too late to get into an argument with TC that will probably last 10 pages till Amp closes the thread.

Ok, TC .. if it wasn't anything to do with colonial expansion in Africa, if that had no effect at all on modern Africa, what is it then?

Are black people just not capable of running modern socieities?

Is there something genetic, cultural, or enviornmental about sub-Saharan Africans that means they are just crap at running governments? Maybe they are just lazy ... Maybe its the food ...

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Sigh ... its really too late to get into an argument with TC that will probably last 10 pages till Amp closes the thread.

You mean that you’ve been caught out as arguing something you couldn’t defend and would prefer to leave the discussion than admit it.

Ok, TC .. if it wasn't anything to do with colonial expansion in Africa, if that had no effect at all on modern Africa, what is it then?

I never said that colonial expansion in Africa had nothing to do with it - all I did was reject your notion that colonial expansion in Africa had everything to do with it.

Had you actually suggested that it was only a factor originally, I would have said nothing, but you didn’t try to backtrack there until much later in the discussion.

The myth that Africa’s plight is solely the responsibility of the Europe (or by extension the Western World) is as assumptive as that which argues that it is a genetic issue.

DadaKopf

swiss wrote:

The most interesting question though, is whether colonialism is to blame for the current situation or not.

I think it explains a lot, but I think people have to shift perspectives away from looking at colonialism as one, limited, historical period, and to see how the logic of it has continued, and has produced syndromes across the continent.

Here's my take on it...

Africa's problems emerged when Western powers decided to begin incorporating the continent into their economic systems. Largely, the Western powers decided that Africa actually had a problem in the first place - that they were "savages" (a word common for the time).

By and large, then, Africa's problems have flowed from its unequal incorporation into the global system through a variety of closely related causes, which occurred in three main phases: the Atlantic slave trade (the Pacific slave trade to a lesser extent), colonisation, and globalisation.

Africa's difficulties began with the slave trade because it ripped apart indigenous political and social structures, setting in motion processes that contributed to violent tribalism. As Africa was plundered for its human wealth, and societies in West africa decimated, slave-traders cut deals with indigenous and highly developed African governments and other leaders. The slave traders armed Africans and got them to kidnap their own people. Gradually, Africans became suspicious of state institutions and broke into smaller units to protect each other, contributing to a sense of suspicion and fear between groups and nations.

The Atlantic trade route was the beginning of globalisation as it linked trade between Europe, Africa and the Americas. European ships travelled to Africa bringing textiles, alcohol, weapons and other luxuries to small European ports and to tribal rulers; the 'Middle Passage' carried slaves across to America to work on the plantations; and finally, ships carried the products of slavery to Europe - tea, sugar, coffee, tobacco, rice, cotton etc.

When colonialism acceletated in the mid-19th century, its processes - directed by the colonial powers - further weakened the relationship between state and society but in altered form. Now the Great Powers exploited Africa for its mineral wealth and wanted to keep Africans there to extract the continent's wealth to export to Europe. Some colonisers, like Belgium and Germany, went about exterminating their subject populations, the Brits and French preferred indirect rule. Throughout the slave trade, African elites began appropriating European affectations as an attempt to adapt to what was going on - this produced a dual identity for many: not Western, not not fully African/Bantu/Congolese etc.

The colonisers realised this and began 'inventing African traditions' in an attempt to make elite classes of African subjects loyal to their new state structures. These would include things like militarisation, oaths of allegiance, African ceremonies etc. The British particularly, exercised indirect rule to maintain their power over their territories. Most importantly, they 'invented' tribes in order to do this. Prior to Western interference, 'tribes' as we know them today didn't exist. Social relations were more fluid, ethnic boundaries more diffuse, many nations had advanced governance structures, many were very democratic and some matriarchal. The colonisers rigidified these tribal identites - which were, by then, really these smaller units of people who had been broken by the slave trade. The incorporation of some tribes into positions of influence, power and wealth and exclusion of others caused these groups to become economic competitors and it allowed a syndrome to develop whereby political legitimacy existed below the state and patrimonial (what we now call 'corrupt') state-society relations developed.

There were also two other methods of incorporation that the colonists used: education and the military, but this varied depending on the colonizer. Educational systems – really only open to the elite tribes – were geared towards creating a black African administrative class, but not how to think for themselves. So it had the dual effect of strengthening the hold of elite tribes over the state post-decolonisation and and has undermined Africans’ capacity to develop themselves only in the sense that after decolonization, curricula have remained the same and access to higher education has remained limited. The use of the military to create African loyalty, particularly by the British, has, obviously, led to militaristic cultures across the continent.

These have strengthened these ‘corrupt’ relations and inter-cultural/inter-class conflict.

All of this continued during the Cold War. While nominally independent, Western powers still exploited Africa's mineral wealth and undermined their development. For example, after Belgium formally decolonised Congo, having massacred and worked to death millions and millions, they made sure to dominate the country economically and politically. They also, in cahoots with the CIA, engineered the assassination of their first president, Patrice Lumumba and made sure that Congo remained as underdeveloped as they did during colonial times.

Anyway, when you begin to look at the political and cultural impediments to development in Africa, as many in the thread have already mentioned, there are probably three main reasons. First, state illegitimacy: as some have said, the territorial units that were arbitrarily drawn up during colonialism and decolonization are not universally accepted and are, often seen as porous (the war in Democratic Republic of the Congo is an example of this); also, because political power exists primarily below the state, governments aren’t seen as the legitimate reflection of popular power – in many countries, this power complex is known as the ‘shadow state’, but it’s often interpenetrated with official state structures. Secondly, weak civil societies: African politics lack a strong social contract between governments and the people, and political relations between competing groups within society is also problematic and sometimes violent. Thirdly, states lack resources to do their job: the state’s role to provide welfare and other things is constantly undermined by a lack of financial resources and human resources and lack of expertise.

The logics of this have been reproduced throughout Africa under globalisation, the third phase. Throughout the 1980s until the present, Africa has been further incorporated into a Western-led global system. It's just that, once again, they way it's gone about looks different, and in some ways it is, but the core logic is nearly identical.

Europe continues to fuel corruption in Africa as our TNCs bribe officials left right and centre to appropriate Africans' resources. This is legalised through Western-dominated institutions like the WTO and resistence by Africans is contained by the IMF, World Bank, Western governments, the military, TNCs etc. It suits the West to have a weak Africa because it enables them to continue to create global rules - or not because they can to it anyway - that allows European companies - not states this time - to recolonise Africa under the guise of 'economic liberalisation'. But, it's important to notice that neo-colonialist power isn't direct power, so a lot of it is also invisible. For example, Ghanaian chicken farmers are currently challenging the government to implement its right to raise tariffs permitted under the WTO on subsidised EU chicken imports which are destroying domestic industry; but the IMF says no and, while the government initially passed the tariff increase into law, the government reneged - they did this partly due to IMF pressure, also due to the fact that many members of the ruling political party themselves import the European chicken.

It suits the West to have a weak Africa because its still very important as a primary comodity exporter.

Crap, it's late, sorry for the long boring, rambling post. I'll clean it up in the morning, and there's lots more I want to say!!!

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I think it explains a lot, but I think people have to shift perspectives away from looking at colonialism as one, limited, historical period, and to see how the logic of it has continued, and has produced syndromes across the continent.

Ahhh... the red flag is finally raised on the argument.

Africa's problems emerged when Western powers decided to begin incorporating the continent into their economic systems.

You mean began trading. Cultures should never do that, I suppose.

Africa's difficulties began with the slave trade because it ripped apart indigenous political and social structures, setting in motion processes that contributed to violent tribalism.

Because violent tribalism and slavery did not thrive long before this in Africa.

As Africa was plundered for its human wealth, and societies in West africa decimated, slave-traders cut deals with indigenous and highly developed African governments and other leaders. The slave traders armed Africans and got them to kidnap their own people. Gradually, Africans became suspicious of state institutions and broke into smaller units to protect each other, contributing to a sense of suspicion and fear between groups and nations.

Do you have any credible evidence (and by that I mean recognised outside of Afro-centric academia) to support this notion?

Some colonisers, like Belgium and Germany, went about exterminating their subject populations, the Brits and French preferred indirect rule. Throughout the slave trade, African elites began appropriating European affectations as an attempt to adapt to what was going on - this produced a dual identity for many: not Western, not not fully African/Bantu/Congolese etc.

All things that occurred in other parts of the World, but without the same effect. Funny that.

The colonisers realised this and began 'inventing African traditions' in an attempt to make elite classes of African subjects loyal to their new state structures. These would include things like militarisation, oaths of allegiance, African ceremonies etc.

Again, all things that occurred in other parts of the World, but without the same effect.

Prior to Western interference, 'tribes' as we know them today didn't exist. Social relations were more fluid, ethnic boundaries more diffuse, many nations had advanced governance structures, many were very democratic and some matriarchal.

That’s a rather sweeping sociological statement to describe an entire continent. Would you happen to have supporting evidence for this or is it just more fancy?

Crap, it's late, sorry for the long boring, rambling post. I'll clean it up in the morning, and there's lots more I want to say!!!

Look, I’ll not bother with the rest of that post for now, but if you manage to support the first part of that tin foil hat theory, I’ll happily question the rest of it.

jank

Of course Colonialism had a part to play, a pretty big partat that but why is it in such a mess?
Is it all the White mans fault?

I say no, but then im just a Racist:rolleyes:

DadaKopf

You mean began trading. Cultures should never do that, I suppose.

By incorporation, I mean use of means beyond simple trade relations - such as arming of Africans for the purposes of supplying them to slave drivers - i.e. through violence - to grease the wheels of the early market economy. I hope you're not implying the slave trade was OK because you think it somehow counts as legitimate trade.

It has to be said this process took time to have its effects. By around 1540, possibly 40,000 African slaves were sent to Spanish colonies; that number increased to 857,000 by 1650. By the mid-19th century, around 12 million African slaves landed in the Americas according to ship manifests. But it advanced rapidly in the 18th century, implying that the human export market had become more developed, and evidence shows slave traders using African agents to capture Africans.

Because violent tribalism and slavery did not thrive long before this in Africa.

The emphasis of my point is on the effects of European intervention in the continent.

I apologise though, I should have been more specific. We don't actually know that for sure because much of African history prior to the arrival of Europeans has disappeared, but based on what historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have to go on, yes, of course warfare of course existed, but 'tribalism' as we and Africans consider it today - as a concept and social phenomenon - didn't exist.

What evidence does show is that powerful kingdoms existed in areas like Mali, Benin and Kongo, there was an empire in a region formerly known as Songhai and Ethiopia. These monarchies had complex political structures and populations in the hundreds of thousands. Hardly 'tribal'. In other areas, populations were more fragmented and had more local-based structures - the Kru of Liberia were one such society.

As for slavery, evidence available shows that while slavery did exist, it wasn't so widespread. Usually, slaves were prisoners of war. Slave practises, generally in West Africa, were therefore low-scale and did not devastate entire communities unlike European-led slavery. Slaves had rights, and could attain citizenship but slavery was not heriditry, i.e. if you're father or mother were slaves, you were a slave, your kids were slaves etc.

The European innovation in the slave trade was 'chattel' slavery which was thoroughgoing in its capture and export methods, it was heridatary and slaves had absolutely no rights whatsover. They weren't even human.

It was mainly chiefs who were employed and armed by slave traders to capture other Africans. This did contribute, at the time and thereafter, to increased warfare and political instability. There's evidence to show that by the late 18th century, sub-Saharan Africa was importing 200,000 muskets a year. So this was just 'trade' was it?

Do you have any credible evidence (and by that I mean recognised outside of Afro-centric academia) to support this notion?

I don't know what you mean by 'Afro-centric academia' Is this some 'Urban' thing? Like, 'Afro-centric' is a by-word for 'African' or 'Black' or 'African studies'... who the hell are you talking about? Why would you consider this kind of material less credible than other sources? Are 'Western-centric' sources more credible, do you think? Do you want to deny Africa a history?

Here's my sources: http://www.nuim.ie/academic/anthropology/AAI/IJA/vol2/story.html

That article's good, but the bibliography is even better:

Bayart, J.-F. 1993. The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. Longman.
Brown, M.E. 1993. Causes and Implications of Ethnic Conflict. in Brown, M.E. (ed.), Ethnic Conflict and International Security. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Davidson, B. 1992. The Black Man's Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation State. James Currey.
Ekeh, P.P., 1990. Social Anthropology and Two Contrasting Uses of Tribalism in Africa. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 32, No. 4.
Human Rights Watch, 1995. Playing the 'Communal Card': Communal Violence and Human Rights. published by Human Rights Watch.
Leys, C. 1996. The Rise and Fall of Development Theory. EAEP/Indiana/James Currey.
Mafeje, A., 1971. The Ideology of 'Tribalism'. Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2.
Nederveen Pieterse, J., 1996. Varieties of Ethnic Politics and Ethnicity Discourse. in Wilmsen, E.N., and P. McAllister (eds.), The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sklar, R.L., 1967. Political Science and National Integration - a Radical Approach. Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1.
Stephen, L. 1996. The Creation and Re-creation of Ethnicity: Lessons from the Zapotec and Mixtec of Oaxaca. Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 2.
Vail, L. 1989. Introduction: Ethnicity in Southern African History. in Vail, L. (ed.), The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa James Currey/ University of California Press

Bayart and Ekeh are particularly good. Also check out Terence Ranger in 'The Invention of Traditions'.

All things that occurred in other parts of the World, but without the same effect. Funny that.

We're talking about Africa, and Africa is a very particular context. It wasn't the same in Latin America. One of the aspects of European colonisation in Latin America, and a persistent feature (outcome?) of its problems is that the colonisers didn't practise indirect rule. Power and state institutions remained, and still largely remain, in the hands of Europeans and European descendants. Social relations set in motion systems of relations in those countries that have persisted despite indigenous peoples and descendants from African slaves developing alternative forms of political action including trades unions and churches, through which populist leaders derived power. These relations are, now, changing in response to globalisation - Chavez in Venezuela is an example of this. But no, indirect rule wasn't a feature of Latin American colonisation. You're really talking about two very, very different contexts which have produced very different situations.

Again, all things that occurred in other parts of the World, but without the same effect.

Maybe you missed out on what I was saying. My linking of the effects of the slave trade and the effects of colonialism is there to show that connected social processes have generated the situation Africa is in today. And, again, we're talking about Africa specifically, so I don't see how you make a point here

That’s a rather sweeping sociological statement to describe an entire continent. Would you happen to have supporting evidence for this or is it just more fancy?

I think I covered this above. If you read the Storey article linked above, you'll see that ethnicity and the term 'tribe' is extremely problematic. Its role in African colonialism is nearly unique as anthropologists working for colonial governments literally created these social units, which were futher made real by legislation and political relations between coloniser and colonised. We can only assume, firstly, that these conditions didn't exist prior to colonialism. Also, different social relations emerged as a result colonialism in West Africa. Comparative modern ethnic studies, at least, suggests that for want of a better word, 'less developed' societies have more fluid boundaries and societies aren't necessarily tied to territory for their identity; neither are they necessarily tied to one ethnic identity, people in developing and developed worlds can be members of different ethnic groups.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

By incorporation, I mean use of means beyond simple trade relations - such as arming of Africans for the purposes of supplying them to slave drivers - i.e. through violence - to grease the wheels of the early market economy.

Evidence please of this.

I hope you're not implying the slave trade was OK because you think it somehow counts as legitimate trade.

Of course it was legitimate trade or are you saying we should judge cultures on the basis of our modern perspective?

I apologise though, I should have been more specific. We don't actually know that for sure because much of African history prior to the arrival of Europeans has disappeared, but based on what historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have to go on, yes, of course warfare of course existed, but 'tribalism' as we and Africans consider it today - as a concept and social phenomenon - didn't exist.

And still you present no evidence of this.

As for slavery, evidence available shows that while slavery did exist, it wasn't so widespread. Usually, slaves were prisoners of war. Slave practises, generally in West Africa, were therefore low-scale and did not devastate entire communities unlike European-led slavery. Slaves had rights, and could attain citizenship but slavery was not heriditry, i.e. if you're father or mother were slaves, you were a slave, your kids were slaves etc.

What evidence?

There's evidence to show that by the late 18th century, sub-Saharan Africa was importing 200,000 muskets a year. So this was just 'trade' was it?

What evidence?

I don't know what you mean by 'Afro-centric academia' Is this some 'Urban' thing?

No it’s an ideological term. And I don’t believe you don’t know what it is.

Why would you consider this kind of material less credible than other sources?

Yes - any school that seeks to promote a political agenda over the verasity of what it is attempting to teach should be considered less credible.

Do you want to deny Africa a history?

Don’t be so melodramatic.

Here's my sources: http://www.nuim.ie/academic/anthropology/AAI/IJA/vol2/story.html

The article presents and cites numerous theory’s including theories that contradict yours. Hardly a source.

But no, indirect rule wasn't a feature of Latin American colonisation. You're really talking about two very, very different contexts which have produced very different situations.

Utter, utter rubbish. Indirect rule was practiced there well into the ninetieth century.

Maybe you missed out on what I was saying. My linking of the effects of the slave trade and the effects of colonialism is there to show that connected social processes have generated the situation Africa is in today. And, again, we're talking about Africa specifically, so I don't see how you make a point here

Could you repeat that in English, san waffle please, as it appears to be saying very little?

I think I covered this above.

No you haven’t. The only evidence you produced was an article with leading sources that agreed with some of what you were saying as one on numerous (and often conflicting) explanations of Africa’s situation.

Beyond that you’ve covered nothing - but you have managed to inject some moral indignation for good effect, I’ll grant you that.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Evidence please of this.

For a man requesting evidence, you're making an awful lot of claims yourself without ever feeling the need to provide the same.

I mean, sure...the conversation could boil down to both of you saying "prove that" to each and every statement the other is making, but seriously....all you seem to do is insist on evidence for any point you're not dismissing with the well-thought-out refutes of the type of "thats utter rubbish", or "I can't understand you, and its waffle besides".

As per usual, this topic has followed a typical course. We see the OP ask his initial question and take no further part in the discussion. We see people get indignant at the suggestion that its not "the white man's" fault. We see other people get indignant at the suggestion that it is. And while the generalisations are flying, we get some pointing out that generalising an entire continent is unfeasible in the first palce, while we see others generalising that one entire continent should produce the same type of result as another did given somewhat-similar histories (if we generalise the history enough as well).

And throughout it all, I only have one reason question. Is the OP ever going to actually join in the discusison he/she started?

DadaKopf

Thanks for that, bonkey . Although I think I've *tried* to explain the influence of Europe on Africa's current state. I also provided an article that actually, fairly accurately sets out my point of view.

TC, I actually explained my point of view to the the guy who wrote that article and he agreed with it. The important point that I didn't get across clearly is this: (1) without the slave trade, colonialism and globalisation, a different set of circumstances would have prevailed in Africa, but (2) due to the presence of these processes, Africa developed in the way that it did as a result of European power and influence, its gradual incorporation into the global economic and political system and as a result of the manners in which new pressures caused by Western influence were received by and reacted to by Africans themselves.

I've just tried to lay out a common thread so people can begin, maybe, to think about the influence of colonialism a little differently from 'populist misunderstandings'.

Where exactly, TC, does that article contradict my posts?

Don't worry, I won't get into a slagging match.

Hobbes

Haven't fully read the whole thread but the OP is way over generalising it. You could probably take each country in Africa on its own and find numerous different reasons as to why it is/isn't a mess today.

Lumping them altogether looking for a common cause is kind of silly.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

For a man requesting evidence, you're making an awful lot of claims yourself without ever feeling the need to provide the same.

I’m not making any claims; I’m disputing the claims of others - the onus is upon those claming that sub-Saharan Africa’s problems are down to European colonialism to substantiate them, not for me to disprove unsubstantiated claims.

DadaKopf wrote:

Although I think I've *tried* to explain the influence of Europe on Africa's current state. I also provided an article that actually, fairly accurately sets out my point of view.

It does not. It sets out only part of your view as well as setting forward contradictory views. It puts forward the theory that “criticises those who would attribute ethnic consciousness in Africa solely to the machinations of colonial and post-colonial politicians”, disagreeing with the slavery motivations that have been repeatedly cited.

Repeatedly we are being painted a picture of a happy and stable sub-Saharan Africa, ruined by European influence and exploitation. Yet for all these claims, all we have been given to support this is often contradictory theory and absolutely no facts. This is what I dispute, as to date in this thread it has been presented as a political fait accompli when in reality all that has been is a theory has been presented to us as fact, dressed up in waffle.

Don't worry, I won't get into a slagging match.

Please spare me the sanctimony.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not making any claims;

So your comment, for example, about Indirect rule being practiced in Latin America well into the ninetieth century wasn't a claim.

What was it then?

I’m disputing the claims of others

Yes, you are. And how are you disputing them?

You're disputing them by claiming some of their arguments are rubbish, by claiming that distinctions they have said exist and are relevant do not in fact exist (as just mentioned above), and so forth.

- the onus is upon those claming that sub-Saharan Africa’s problems are down to European colonialism to substantiate them, not for me to disprove unsubstantiated claims.

Fine, but you appear to be deciding the claims are unsibstantiated because you don't accept the substantiation provided. Its not because you have provided information from equally/more credible sources to show that the claims made are incorrect, or that you have argued succinctly why the reasoning is flawed, but rather because you are declaring it to be so.

It does not. It sets out only part of your view as well as setting forward contradictory views. It puts forward the theory that “criticises those who would attribute ethnic consciousness in Africa solely to the machinations of colonial and post-colonial politicians”, disagreeing with the slavery motivations that have been repeatedly cited.

Unless those motivations were cited as the sole reason for something, then there is no contradiction.

I haven't seen Dada suggest anything was the sole reason. Indeed, I've seen him argue that there's been a string of factors, as well as a loss of information meaning that certain historical aspects can only be conjectured.

Repeatedly we are being painted a picture of a happy and stable sub-Saharan Africa, ruined by European influence and exploitation.

Where?

Dada's comment about slavery existing, but mostly as an offshoot of war, perhaps? Or the comment that we don't know as much as we'd like to because we've lost so much historical knowledge?

Yet for all these claims,

What claims? No, really. What claims?

I've gone and re-read this entire thread, and I can't see a single line in a single post maknig this allegation other than you insisting its whats being done.

So seriously,...can you show me what I'm missing, because I can't find it but you seem to be suggesting that not only has it been claimed, but its been claimed often.

Or is this another claim-thats-not-a-claim so you don't feel that you have to actually support your claims.

This is what I dispute, as to date in this thread it has been presented as a political fait accompli when in reality all that has been is a theory has been presented to us as fact, dressed up in waffle.

And here we have another claim-thats-not-a-claim. The stuff you're refuting is nonsensical because....well....because you've said so. And - by your own suggestion - you've managed to show it to be nonsensical without making a single claim about anything!!!


jc

Hobbes

I think the point is that once a person explains where they got thier source from (even if that source is flawed) if you want to go out and point out that it is wrong/contridictory then it is up to you to do so.

Remember the whole point of asking for sources isn't an excuse to berate the poster but to cross reference and/or to point out why you believe thier source is wrong.

Thats probably where the contention is. (Not having a go at you or anything).

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Yes, you are. And how are you disputing them?

Primarily by demanding that they are backed up with more than theory.

Fine, but you appear to be deciding the claims are unsibstantiated because you don't accept the substantiation provided.

There is no substantiation provided. A theory is presented without evidence and when pressed on evidence the only evidence proffered is someone else presenting part of the theory, again without evidence.

Unless those motivations were cited as the sole reason for something, then there is no contradiction.

That it was the sole reason for something has been implied throughout, with the exception of Wicknight tried backtracking later on in his arguments.

I haven't seen Dada suggest anything was the sole reason. Indeed, I've seen him argue that there's been a string of factors, as well as a loss of information meaning that certain historical aspects can only be conjectured.

What string of other factors? Where? Any factors presented by Wicknight and Dada have all been directly and not so indirectly attributed to European colonialism.

Where?

It is a natural extension of the original premise that European colonialism was at the root of all Africa’s evils.

What claims? No, really. What claims?

Are you suggesting that Wicknight and Dada made no claims? What have I being disagreeing with then? They state something and that is not a claim? Are you reading the same thread?

And here we have another claim-thats-not-a-claim. The stuff you're refuting is nonsensical because....well....because you've said so.

No, it is nonsensical because it has been presented as fact without credible evidence.

shotamoose

Corinthian, I'd like you to provide some back-up for one of your claims in particular, please. You said "ethnic divisions and border issues exist everywhere, and they do cause conflict everywhere", but "you cannot use this as an excuse for why sub-Saharan Africa is how it is".

Well, I've no intention of using it as an 'excuse' but I do think it is a major cause of conflict in SSA, something you seem keen to de-emphasise, probably because those ethnic divisions and border issues are to a large degree legacies of the made-up countries left behind by colonists.

The thing is, ethnic divisions are much greater in Sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions - see page 9 of this research, which says that the 20 most ethnically 'fractionalized' countries in the world are in Sub-Saharan Africa (Yugoslavia was at number 13, but we all know what happened there).

So, are you saying that ethnic divisions are no greater in Sub-Saharan Africa? Because that's obviously not true. Or are you saying that ethnic divisions somehow cause less conflict in Africa than they do elsewhere? If so, it's another case of "show me the evidence", and no more of this vague theoretical waffle please.

The Corinthian

shotamoose wrote:

Well, I've no intention of using it as an 'excuse' but I do think it is a major cause of conflict in SSA,

That’s a fair point.

something you seem keen to de-emphasise, probably because those ethnic divisions and border issues are to a large degree legacies of the made-up countries left behind by colonists.

And that it not. You assume that that this was as a result of the national divisions that were left behind. Were that the case then had the divisions more closely mapped the ethnic differences in Africa (potentially resulting in three of four times as many separate nations), then such ethnic conflict would not exist. Can you demonstrate that? Or would conflict have continued unabated? Instead of countless civil wars, would we then see countless national wars for the continents resources?

Indeed, what you’re doing is promoting another slant to the “it was all Europe’s fault” theory and expecting us to take your word for it, never considering whether anything would have differed that had Europe had a different relationship with Africa.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

What string of other factors? Where? Any factors presented by Wicknight and Dada have all been directly and not so indirectly attributed to European colonialism.

So you see the comments that policies of the likes of the WTO, IMF and World Bank haven't helped as colonialism? That we still, in fact, rule these countries by proxy or something?

Sure, such comments may have followed on from colonialism, but what would one expect given that they occurred afterwards?

As Dada pointed out, we've rather successfully destroyed most of any ability we may have had to collect any truly definite and detailed history of Africa pre-colonialism. Now, unless you'd like to prove him wrong by pointing us at such a definitive, detailed history, there's not much more we can do in terms of looking at conditions in detail pre-colonialism. So that leaves colonialism and everything since then....and everything since then in one way or another has "led on" from colonialism.

It is a natural extension of the original premise that European colonialism was at the root of all Africa’s evils.

What original premise?

Who made this original premise?

Wicknight, who's already reworded his comments? Dada who's acknowledged other problems and the existence of war / slavery before hand? The OP who didn't comment on it at all? Seriously...can you link to the post where this premise was originally made in this thread?

Are you suggesting that Wicknight and Dada made no claims?

No. I'm suggesting that you ignored some of their claims in order to singularise others and effectively re-interpret what it was they were saying.

Before you even posted on the thread, Wicknight asked are we going to start summing up an entire continent in a few easy to understand (but completely over simplified) responses, and followed that with a comment that The economic and social reasons for each African countries situation is unique, long and complex

You decided to ignore this and treat his answer to "is X to blame" with a "yes" to mean that he had answered "is X solely to blame". And while thats not unreasonable in itself, bear in mind that - as I pointed out - Wick already acknowledged the incorrectness of gneralising all of Africa with simplified explanations. Did you honestly think that he meant "all over-simplifications except the ones that you could interpret earlier posts of mine to contain" when he said that?

Dada has acknowledged pre-colonial "lack of utopia", as well as commenting on post-colonial problems, and yet you construe the arguments as though people are claiming everything was hunky-dory before the colonial days, and that all of the problems were created by the colonials. He's even admitted to the complicity of some African in some of the issues, so clearly he's not suggesting that its exclusively colonial faults either.

What have I being disagreeing with then?

Thats what I'm trying to figure out.

AS far as I can see, you're disagreeing with the concept that the white man deserves blame, and you're deliberately interpreting other poster's comments to be more singular in how they assign blame than (I believe) the original authors intended.

They were asked a question. Can colonists be blamed. They were not asked Are colonists solely to blame, but this is the question you seem to be interpreting their responses as answers for.

Also, as I've argued above, you seem to be ignoring certain comments made, and then claiming that your "one-sided" interpretation is justified because people haven't acknowleged the very stuff that was in the comments you ignored!!!

No, it is nonsensical because it has been presented as fact without credible evidence.

So you will presumably agree that anything you have presented as fact without credible evidence (e.g. your comments about indirect rule in Latin America) is also nonsensical???

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

So you see the comments that policies of the likes of the WTO, IMF and World Bank haven't helped as colonialism? That we still, in fact, rule these countries by proxy or something?

Are we redefining European colonialism now?

As Dada pointed out, we've rather successfully destroyed most of any ability we may have had to collect any truly definite and detailed history of Africa pre-colonialism.

Pointed out but didn’t back up, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take his word for it.

Now, unless you'd like to prove him wrong by pointing us at such a definitive, detailed history

Bonkey, honestly that really is a dire argument. Would you like to give us a similar definitive, detailed history of stone-age man or Australian aborigines? Or did we burn all their books too?

What original premise?

I’m not repeating myself.

Wicknight, who's already reworded his comments?

Backtracked.

Dada who's acknowledged other problems and the existence of war / slavery before hand?

He understated them in passing.

No. I'm suggesting that you ignored some of their claims in order to singularise others and effectively re-interpret what it was they were saying.

No. I have repeatedly and consistently questioned the assertion that it all comes down to European colonialism. They must demonstrate that they are doing more than just spouting unsubstantiated theories.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Are we redefining European colonialism now?

I wouldn't have considered the WTO, the IMF, or the World Bank to be European colonialism, so unless they are, I'm not redefining anything. I'm stating that these were mentioned as problems, so unless you feel they are colonial problems, my point that the poster in question clearly couldn't be laying all blame at the colonial's feet still holds water.

Pointed out but didn’t back up, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take his word for it.
...
Bonkey, honestly that really is a dire argument. Would you like to give us a similar definitive, detailed history of stone-age man or Australian aborigines? Or did we burn all their books too?

Its quite difficult (impossible, actually) to prove that we don't have a detailed history. It is easy, however, to prove we do have one...by supplying it.

Backtracked.

As I pointed out, unless you understand his comment about generalisations to mean he was saying only his generalisations were sound, he had backtracked - or whatever term you wish to use - before you started even posting on the thread.

He understated them in passing.

So you acknowledge that he referenced them....which immediately asks how you can suggest he was implying the exact opposite - that such problems didnt exist?

No. I have repeatedly and consistently questioned the assertion that it all comes down to European colonialism.

But no-one has made that assertion. You've been ignoring key points about their argument which indicate that both explicitly admit there were other factors....except in the post I'm replying to where you acknowledge its referenced but downplayed.

Sure, you can argue they they're exaggerating the colonials' importance, but no-one in this thread has suggested it was the only factor, which is the position you're attacking.

never considering whether anything would have differed that had Europe had a different relationship with Africa.

What might have happened doesn't matter. "You can't prove he wouldn't have died anyway" doesn't absolve one from murder. I can't see a situation where the same doesn't apply for any other wrong-doing. As soon as you make the decisions, you carry the responsibility.

How long you carry that responsibility for, and what the reprecussions for that responsibility are....thats an entirely seperate question.

edanto

The Corinthian wrote:

....questioning everything....

I've read through your posts and I'm left wondering.....what's your opinion on the original question?

What are the most influential factors contributing to the sorry state of Africa, in your opinon?

shotamoose

The Corinthian wrote:

You assume that that this was as a result of the national divisions that were left behind.

Well, the characteristics of a country depend on its borders, and the borders of African countries were largely set by the colonists, so yes, the ethnic fractionalization of Africa is largely a result of what colonisation left behind. Oviously.

Were that the case then had the divisions more closely mapped the ethnic differences in Africa (potentially resulting in three of four times as many separate nations), then such ethnic conflict would not exist. Can you demonstrate that?

This is another example of you taking a straightforward question, turning it into a claim and demanding that the questioner 'prove it'. How about you just answer the question you were asked? Do ethnic divisions somehow cause less conflict in Africa than they do elsewhere? Or does the higher level of ethnic divisions account for a lot of the violence in Africa?

But as it happens, it does look like ethnic fractionalization causes conflicts. Of the countries with the highest fractionalization in that research paper I linked to, very few have escaped either war or massive corruption (eg the top two, Liberia and Uganda).

Indeed, what you’re doing is promoting another slant to the “it was all Europe’s fault” theory and expecting us to take your word for it

Don't take it personally, but if crazy borders make for crazy countries then Europe obviously does need to take some responsibility. And as my earlier post demonstrated I am quite clearly not putting all of Africa's problems down to colonialism, so you can quit constructing your little straw men now.

never considering whether anything would have differed that had Europe had a different relationship with Africa.

Er, that's exactly what I'm considering. That's what I was considering when I compared the effects of different types of colonialism. Please try and pay more attention next time.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Its quite difficult (impossible, actually) to prove that we don't have a detailed history. It is easy, however, to prove we do have one...by supplying it.

Irrelevant. You are suggesting that there was such a written history for the African continent that preceded European colonisation and, furthermore, that it was destroyed by said European colonisation. I’m not the one making all the unfounded assumptions.

As I pointed out, unless you understand his comment about generalisations to mean he was saying only his generalisations were sound, he had backtracked - or whatever term you wish to use - before you started even posting on the thread.

I understood and he did not imply that to begin. Please show where he did.

But no-one has made that assertion.

Sure they have, the implication has been there. If you ask a simple yes / no answer to “do sub-Saharan Africa’s problems ultimately stem from her experience of European colonialism?”, what do you think their answer will be?

I invite Dada, Wicknight and even shotamoose to answer that question.

Sure, you can argue they they're exaggerating the colonials' importance, but no-one in this thread has suggested it was the only factor, which is the position you're attacking.

In fairness, that is all I’m trying to suggest, looking back on my previous posts I didn’t explain that adequately.

What might have happened doesn't matter. "You can't prove he wouldn't have died anyway" doesn't absolve one from murder.

Not the same thing. A man commits suicide, but if another man is simply in his vicinity at the time, does that mean he murdered the man?

How long you carry that responsibility for, and what the reprecussions for that responsibility are....thats an entirely seperate question.

Agreed.

shotamoose wrote:

This is another example of you taking a straightforward question, turning it into a claim and demanding that the questioner 'prove it'. How about you just answer the question you were asked?

Of course I answered the question, of course ethnic divisions contribute to conflict, however I disputed that the border drawing that Europe carried out would have had a real effect on these tensions.

Two or more ethnic groups would still have remained geographically next to each other, one with more resources than the other - do you really think that an arbitrary concept such as a national border would have much of a difference to ethnic conflicts? Might civil war not have simply been replaced with national war?

Er, that's exactly what I'm considering. That's what I was considering when I compared the effects of different types of colonialism. Please try and pay more attention next time.

Could have fooled me.

edanto wrote:

What are the most influential factors contributing to the sorry state of Africa, in your opinon?

My own opinion - and I stress it is only an option or theory and not fact by any means - is that sub-Saharan Africa, once she came in contact with the outside World (not only the Europeans, but also the Arabs) were and still are unable to make the social and technological jump necessary to compete with these nations. This is also because there were few if any actual nations - some pretty well developed states and empires existed (although ironically the Arabs destroyed more of those than the Europeans), but for the most part Africa was pretty tribal, ethnically fractionated and primitive. The jump to the modern World was, and in much of Africa still appears to be, too great.

Unfortunately sub-Saharan Africa had no Rama IV or Meiji restoration - instead most were what we would consider little more then tribal warlords, such as the famous Zulu king Shaka. As a result, with the exception of a handful of, often short lived, kingdoms and empires (and yes there are exceptions, but the exceptions don’t cover the entire continent), sub-Saharan Africa has remained relatively primitive and highly tribal, with all that come with that.

So blaming Europe, or Islam, for what has happened in sub-Saharan Africa is thus, IMHO, like shaking your fist at a hurricane. Clash and / or interaction of cultures is inevitable. Asia was able to modernise with far greater ease - Thailand and Japan in particular were even able to resist colonialism for the most part because they were able to modernise to compete.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not the one making all the unfounded assumptions.

Not all of them, no, just some of them.

No-one on this thread has made all of them.

I understood and he did not imply that to begin. Please show where he did.

I already quoted the relevant piece when I was forming my point.

So at this point, I'll return your "I'm not repeating myself" comment from before right back to you.

Sure they have, the implication has been there.

No, it hasn't.

You've decided that its there. Along the way have ignored the fact that one of the posters has recognised the limits of oversimplification to a single issue for a single continent, and the other has included a list of non-colonial factors while you claim he's implying its all colonialism's fault.

If you ask a simple yes / no answer to “do sub-Saharan Africa’s problems ultimately stem from her experience of European colonialism?”, what do you think their answer will be?

I invite Dada, Wicknight and even shotamoose to answer that question.

I think they'd be foolish to answer a question weighted little better than "yes or no - have you stopped beating your wife yet", but its their perogative.

I'm certainly not going to suggest that I know which of the two options they'd chose if they did answer the question.

The one thing I'm reasonably certain of is that Wicknight would once more point out how reducing the situtation to a single issue for a single continent is inherently dodgy.

In fairness, that is all I’m trying to suggest,

Well lets leave it there then.

w66w66

. Artificial states obviously contributed to the problems we see today in Africa, as artificial are inherently flawed, with many of the conflicts we see and hear about on a daily occurrence in news stemming from artificial states. But the fact of the matter is that, South Africa, a nation riddled with ethnic tension, is the most successful nation in Africa. Not to mention Zimbabwe, which in its days under white rule when know as Rhodesia, was also riddled with ethnic tensions. It also happened to be the most the successful country in Africa at the time, far richer than many of mono ethnic nations in Africa. Coherent Artificial states obviously contributed to the problems we see today in Africa, as artificial are inherently flawed, with many of the conflicts we see and hear about on a daily occurrence in news stemming from artificial states. But the fact of the matter is that, South Africa, a nation riddled with ethnic tension, is the most successful nation in Africa. Not to mention Zimbabwe, which in its days under white rule when know as Rhodesia, was also riddled with ethnic tensions. It also happened to be the most the successful country in Africa at the time, far richer than many of mono ethnic nations in Africa. For me the most rational and Coherent explanation for African poverty is genetics, it seems baffling to me otherwise, that base level economies brimming with natural resources such as oil and diamonds and also many areas with excellent agricultural possibilities can only achieve 2 or 3 percent economic growth annually. Even stable, democratic and mono ethnic countries like Ghana, with a base line economy, a nation with oil and diamonds, can only achieve 3 percent growth a year.

edanto

w66w66 wrote:

For me the most rational and Coherent explanation for African poverty is genetics

You must be joking. What about debt? In 2002, developing countries (around the world) got $58bn in aid, but paid out $342bn in debt repayments. Genetics....pah.... I hope those blinkers hurt the sides of your head.

The Corinthian wrote:

sub-Saharan Africa, once she came in contact with the outside World (not only the Europeans, but also the Arabs) were and still are unable to make the social and technological jump necessary to compete with these nations

If your reason for them being unable to make this jump doesn't take into account 4 centuries of their social, political and military leaders being captured and sold to slave traders then you must also be joking. They couldn't make a technological leap because they were overly 'tribal'? Could you develop that a little please?

I was told in Ghana that every time a slave ship appeared on the horizon, fighting would break out amongst the tribes and prisoners-of-war would be sold to the traders at the castles. Victories in the skirmishes would ebb and flow with time, so the brave and strong that took part in the fighting from both sides would end up in a dungeon waiting to be loaded on to a ship.

You must take account of this, and subsequent trade practices that have exploited those countries, when starting to explain the differences that we see today.