Decolonisation of Africa: Wind of Change

The Scientician

I'd like to discuss the decolonisation of Africa by the European powers in the post-World War Two period.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization_of_Africa

Each colonised country in Africa had a differing experience of decolonization depending on variables such as the European power that controlled it, colonial government, local leadership and resistance, the duration of colonisation, infrastructure, and world opinion. Some African countries had had the briefest of occupations by European powers, for example Ethiopia. Others, like South Africa and Angola, had a long history of European settlement and control.

France, the UK, Portugal etc. were initially reluctant to give up their colonies. This led to bloody conflicts in Algeria, Kenya, and elsewhere. Latterly the French and British approached decolonisation more pragmatically. Harold Macmillan set the mood of the times with his Wind Of Change speech, delivered to the South African parliament in 1960.

Even still each country's experience varied. Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) had a relatively uneventful transition from colony to country whereas Southern Rhodesia (first Rhodesia, then Zimbabwe) went through a period of apartheid-style white minority rule from 1965-1980 under Ian Smith. The refusal of Smith et al to hand over power to the black majority in the country led to the Bush War. White Rhodesia initially had support from South Africa and from Portugal's colonies but as the Portuguese colonies gained their independence and US pressure on South Africa mounted the Rhodesians eventually had to acquisce to majority rule.

In South Africa apartheid ended in 1994, which could be seen as the point od decolonisation, however I'm not sure exactly how that country fits into the African decolonisation schema. It has had a European population for centuries. It has been independent longer than most other African countries, having initially been given Dominion status on a par with Canada and Australia. And most importantly, despite a lot of white flight to other countries after 1994, descendents of various waves of European colonialism still form an integral part of South African society, comprising approximately 10% of the population. This is in contrast to most other previously colonised African countries where the European population is typically negligible.

Some questions I'd like to discuss and others please feel free to post your own.

Which countries experienced the best decolonisation, and which suffered the worst?

Do the European powers still owe anything to their former colonies in Africa?

How could decolonisation have been managed better?

And the broadest question of all, leaving aside the morality of colonisation.

What lasting benefits, if any, have there been for Africa from European colonisation?

jonniebgood1

The very basis of the creation of African 'countries' as colonised entities was a big part of the problem. In the scramble for Africa European powers generally grabbed large tracts of territory and called them countries which they then controlled the assets of. Reading about African countries today on a one by one basis is a bit depressing in that the outcomes are usually familiar with internal difficulties everywhere. In 90% of these cases my understanding is that the route of the problems are similar. In simple terms the people that are contained in these countries were never supposed to be associated with each other in the countries created by the European invadors.

I will take Angola as a typical example to try and explain myself. Angola has distinct tribes of almost 100 different ethnicities, many of which have their own distinct launguages or ones shared amongst tribes. These traditional tribal groupings have of course many similarities and can be grouped together to form 3-4 main/ powerful tribal groups (excluding white settlers). These 3-4 groups had very few links to each other before Portugal decided that they would be collated into a colony. Thus when Portugal left Angola these tribal groupings still had no link to each other but they were now part of the one country so naturally they all wanted to have control over the country as that meant control over their own tribe. So since 1975 Angola has been torn apart by numerous civil wars as these tribes now all want to control the Angolan territory.

Apologies if that is overly convoluted but it could summarise the case in almost all the countries that are still at war in Africa. Sudan, Sierre leone, Congo, etc.

The questions at the end are all interesting and I will look at them but I want to look at a book at home first. They border on humanities questions but I think we can look also at the history as the cause of the problems at hand.

ScissorPaperRock

If I remember correctly, there's a paper by an economist called Acemoglu, who uses settler mortality rates in colonised countries as a proxy for the quality of public institutions so that the impact of institutions on per capita income can be evaluated.

His assumption is that in those countries where settler mortality rates were high, conditions were unfavourable to settlers and therefore that it was less likely that they would spend much time and effort building strong, quality public institutions. Rather, they would focus on just getting whatever resources they needed and getting out of there.

So by comparing the GDP per capita of countries that had high settler mortality rates with those of low settler mortality rates, the effect of institutions on GDP can be determined.

Interesting stuff if you're interested in the effects of colonisation on development today in differentiated terms

jonniebgood1

The Scientician wrote: »

Which countries experienced the best decolonisation, and which suffered the worst?

Do the European powers still owe anything to their former colonies in Africa?

How could decolonisation have been managed better?

And the broadest question of all, leaving aside the morality of colonisation.

What lasting benefits, if any, have there been for Africa from European colonisation?

The best example in terms of peace and relative success would be Botswana. It is probably not a coincidence that it is one of the few examples where the country is not divided on tribal lines, i.e. its people are all from same ethnic background. It had nothing at independence and then succesfully developed industry (diamonds). This does not always follow as many African nations have raw materials and do not make the best of them.

The worst could be a difficult choice. I would select the Congo as the worst example. It has a sad history. Most nations with the raw materials of Congo would be a success story but it is falling apart with tribal civil wars tearing the place apart.

Manach

The links between Africa and Europe are part of recorded history for thousands of years. However beyond the Magreb and the coastal areas, there was little interaction due to environmental factors. There is little to suggest that politics rivalries and wars were not present in these areas. During the era of colonisation, Slaves and settlement were key drivers. For the latter this was abetted by local African middlemen who sold both to Western powers and Arab traders. However, AFAIR, historians suggest that due to the increase need for slaves, this heavily distributed population patterns in the areas effected.
Algeria is an example of de-colonisation which was handled poorly. Not only because of the bloodshed on both sides between the native Algerians and Pied-noirs, but the legacy of bitterness it left behind - directly leading to the dirty civil war a generation later.

jonniebgood1

Manach wrote: »

Algeria is an example of de-colonisation which was handled poorly. Not only because of the bloodshed on both sides between the native Algerians and Pied-noirs, but the legacy of bitterness it left behind - directly leading to the dirty civil war a generation later.

I am interested in others suggestions of decolonisation that were handled well. Aside from Botswana which is a small state I am struggling for decent examples.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am interested in others suggestions of decolonisation that were handled well. Aside from Botswana which is a small state I am struggling for decent examples.

There are none - decolonisation removed military power but the imperial countries still maintained economic dominance. The possible exception is South Africa for obvious reasons, which did play and continues to play a semi-imperialist role in the Southern African region.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There are none - decolonisation removed military power but the imperial countries still maintained economic dominance. The possible exception is South Africa for obvious reasons, which did play and continues to play a semi-imperialist role in the Southern African region.

Fair enough then. I agree. So if there are so few examples of positive handovers it is shame on the colonial powers. Some people say that hte Francophone conutries have faired better than other?

THe OP looked for lasting benefits from colonisation- Any suggestions?

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Fair enough then. I agree. So if there are so few examples of positive handovers it is shame on the colonial powers. Some people say that hte Francophone conutries have faired better than other?

Well the Congo is French-speaking (if not a French colony) and it has probably fared worse in colonisation and decolonisation than any other. Also the French are happy to send the Foreign Legion into any country where they feel their interests are threatened.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

THe OP looked for lasting benefits from colonisation- Any suggestions?

Could it be argued that the rail network in India and the Suez Canal are positives? - maybe. Outside of that I can't think of anything except exploitation, misery and death.

Manach

Offhand from the Anglophile sphere, Kenya is the one that springs to mind as a country which was transitioned fairly successfully. My knowledge of the country is only from disperate sources, one of which was a biography of the fossil-hunter Leakey, but it does seem that the British managed to hand-over power to the local elites whilst surpressing (in their eyes) the more extreme Mau-Mau.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Well the Congo is French-speaking (if not a French colony) and it has probably fared worse in colonisation and decolonisation than any other. Also the French are happy to send the Foreign Legion into any country where they feel their interests are threatened.
.

Congo was Belguim.

Could it be argued that the rail network in India and the Suez Canal are positives? - maybe. Outside of that I can't think of anything except exploitation, misery and death.

The indian rail network is positive but thread is on Africa. Suez has caused conflict and I was looking for a country although I suppose to pick out elements might be more likely.

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

Offhand from the Anglophile sphere, Kenya is the one that springs to mind as a country which was transitioned fairly successfully. My knowledge of the country is only from disperate sources, one of which was a biography of the fossil-hunter Leakey, but it does seem that the British managed to hand-over power to the local elites whilst surpressing (in their eyes) the more extreme Mau-Mau.

What? The entire Mau-Mau revolt was a reaction to the gross abuses and land theft of the British colonial settlers. Its suppression required the creation of what was effectively a police state; complete with the mass detention of civilian populations in concentration camps and the creation of a network of prison camps in which to intern and 'process' suspects without trial. It's hard to pick a worse example of such blatant and unrestrained violence on the part of British authorities. Which is really saying something given Britain's colonial history

The handover itself was largely accompanied by exodus of European settlers and the hurried handing of power to Kenyatta, a typical authoritarian strongman. For more on Kenya see Elkin's Imperial Reckoning

Manach

When "Imperial Reckoning" was initially published, it received poor reviews so I decided to pass. Modern day Kenya is not an ideal country. Then again neither is Ireland. But, in the context of Africa it is stable, has a functionally legaslative and praised judicial system which it inherited from the UK.
In constrast, Congo. Here the colonial power did not manage the handover, essentially cutting and running. At present I'm reading "Dancing in the Glory of Monsters" about the aftermath of this, the wars in which millions have died.
Thus the UK in surpressing (in their eyes) the more extreme Mau-Mau was the better long term strategy.

MarchDub

Manach wrote: »

When "Imperial Reckoning" was initially published, it received poor reviews so I decided to pass.

I wouldn't go by reviews to finally judge any book - many of the reviewers were coming to Elkins material from an uninformed position anyway and some had their own imperial bias to defend. Elkins did claim to be breaking new ground and using sources that she uncovered. I read it and found it interesting and with a sound degree of plausibility. And anyway, Imperial Reckoning received what I would call mixed reviews - but frequently only for detail not for essentials. The New York Times said:

Elkins, a history professor at Harvard, also neglects individual portraits, but she develops an unforgettable catalog of atrocities and mass killing perpetrated by the British. ''Imperial Reckoning'' is an important and excruciating record; it will shock even those who think they have assumed the worst about Europe's era of control in Africa. Nearly the entire Kikuyu population of 1.5 million was, by Elkins's calculation, herded by the British into various gulags. Elkins, who assembled her indictment through archives, letters and interviews with survivors and colonists, tells of a settler who would burn the skin off Mau Mau suspects or force them to eat their own testicles as methods of interrogation. She quotes a survivor recalling a torment evocative of Abu Ghraib: lines of Kikuyu detainees ordered to strip naked and embrace each other randomly, and a woman committing suicide after being forced into the arms of her son-in-law. She quotes an anonymous settler telling her, ''Never knew a Kuke had so many brains until we cracked open a few heads.'' Her method is relentless; page after page, chapter after chapter, the horrors accumulate.

XxMCRxBabyxX

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The Scientician wrote: »

Which countries experienced the best decolonisation, and which suffered the worst?

Do the European powers still owe anything to their former colonies in Africa?

How could decolonisation have been managed better?

And the broadest question of all, leaving aside the morality of colonisation.

What lasting benefits, if any, have there been for Africa from European colonisation?

The best example in terms of peace and relative success would be Botswana. It is probably not a coincidence that it is one of the few examples where the country is not divided on tribal lines, i.e. its people are all from same ethnic background. It had nothing at independence and then succesfully developed industry (diamonds). This does not always follow as many African nations have raw materials and do not make the best of them.

The worst could be a difficult choice. I would select the Congo as the worst example. It has a sad history. Most nations with the raw materials of Congo would be a success story but it is falling apart with tribal civil wars tearing the place apart.

One minor, pedantic, point on this. Bechuanaland was never a colony, only ever a British protectorate as requested by the main tribes themselves.

They also has a fantastic president who broke racial and political barriers by marrying a white woman, which in turn made him a role model to his country and the Setswana hugely admired him and united under him which had an impact in the Botswana success story

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

When "Imperial Reckoning" was initially published, it received poor reviews so I decided to pass

Your loss. The book is meticulously researched and is now being vindicated by the release of UK archives in a legal case. Really, have a read

The whole furore over the book simply served as a demonstration as to how many elements of British academia remain unwilling to accept just how brutal the Empire could often be. Their criticisms were typically pretty inane: Gasp, surely you can't write a book about British brutality without mentioning the Mau Mau crimes!?! Well yeah, because it's a book about Kenyan treatment at the hands of a brutally murderous state...

Modern day Kenya is not an ideal country. Then again neither is Ireland. But, in the context of Africa it is stable, has a functionally legaslative and praised judicial system which it inherited from the UK

Again, what? First of all, the Ireland comparison is just not going to fly. You cannot compare water charges to the flight of thousands. I'd consider it insulting to even try

And that refugee wave was reported a few days ago. The last few years have been marked by fairly intense violence. Kenya is not an ideal country; it is barely a functioning nationstate. It's fared slightly better than some of its neighbours over the past half century but only by the dire standards of the continent. It has retained most of the hallmarks of modern African governance: autocracy, a corrupt elite, ethnic strife, minimal economic development and indescribably poor central government. And this is a success story?

(Lauding the judicial system is also pretty laughable when you consider the kangaroo court that the colonial officials put Kenyatta through in the 1950s)

In constrast, Congo. Here the colonial power did not manage the handover, essentially cutting and running. At present I'm reading "Dancing in the Glory of Monsters" about the aftermath of this, the wars in which millions have died.
Thus the UK in surpressing (in their eyes) the more extreme Mau-Mau was the better long term strategy.

Again there are multiple problems with this. In the first place Kenya is not the Congo. I know that they are both in Africa but we are dealing here with different countries in different circumstances

Secondly, where are you getting the notion that the brutal suppression of the revolt (in order to maintain a colonial order that would be dismantled a few years later) somehow saved Kenya from being a new Congo? I'd suggest that a better hypothetical would be: what if Britain had not installed a settler elite that tried to run the country like a new South Africa?

Finally, Britain did cut and run in Kenya. They left with indecent haste. That the country did not explode like the Congo is largely do to the fact that it's not the Congo

Manach

Firstly, Reekwind's sensibility to insult and humour are not something I'm overly bothered about. Kenya, without resourcing to the google search function, is one of African more stable states. It has not de-stablished into chaos like its neighbour to the north. As regards in Judiciary, I'm aware of comtempory academic articles that have praised its modern constitution and hold it out as a example for other countries.

That the book you mention has negative reviews, hence is a indication of holdover of Imperial attitudes ignores the anti-Empire establishment that dominates UK academia and their innate hostility to opposing views such as the historian Niall Ferguson.

Kenya and Congo share a lot more than just a near geographic location: both had similar internal stresses but only one had survived in a reasonable state, why?. Congo had been left with, "after seventy-five years of colonization, one [Congolese] priest by 1917, five. [Congolese] warrant officers in an army of sergeants and corporals in. 1960, plus five pseudo-university graduate" - source, Dancing to the Glory.

The UK left at least the framework to maintain a nation state which allow a portion of the settler to contribute to the country as Farmers or Scientists (like the Leakys) instead of having to flee as the country imploded.
History at its ugliest is one record of inhuman violence after another. But the ideological inability to recognise that anti-Imperialist violence is just as bad that of the Authorities lends to the fallacy of projecting modern aims and moral standards to events that happened in the past.

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

Kenya, without resourcing to the google search function, is one of African more stable states

Yes. Which is a pretty damning indictment of the overall situation on the continent. Its post-independence history is one of misrule by autocrats. We should be thankful that it has not descended to the same level of conflict as the Congo but then very few states have

Does this make Kenya a 'success story'? Only when you assume that the alternative is a war that kills millions. Which is a deeply disingenuous stance

That the book you mention has negative reviews, hence is a indication of holdover of Imperial attitudes ignores the anti-Empire establishment that dominates UK academia and their innate hostility to opposing views such as the historian Niall Ferguson

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you had been reading leftist academic journals. But good to hear that you managed to avoid the tory voices that dominated criticism of the book in the mainstream media

Kenya and Congo share a lot more than just a near geographic location: both had similar internal stresses but only one had survived in a reasonable state, why?. Congo had been left with, "after seventy-five years of colonization, one [Congolese] priest by 1917, five. [Congolese] warrant officers in an army of sergeants and corporals in. 1960, plus five pseudo-university graduate" - source, Dancing to the Glory.

Different countries, different colonial histories, different economic bases, different ethnic compositions, different geographies, different relations with colonial authorities, etc, etc and we're to claim that they are so similar that it was how the Europeans left that made the difference...

Really?

The UK left at least the framework to maintain a nation state which allow a portion of the settler to contribute to the country as Farmers or Scientists (like the Leakys) instead of having to flee as the country imploded.
History at its ugliest is one record of inhuman violence after another. But the ideological inability to recognise that anti-Imperialist violence is just as bad that of the Authorities lends to the fallacy of projecting modern aims and moral standards to events that happened in the past.

Genuine confusion here this time: what? Coherence, please

The vast majority of the settler population did flee and the British authorities did leave with indecent haste. The country didn't implode into violence because it had never being going to - the Mau Mau campaign was aimed primarily at the settlers, not fellow Africans. The flights of the Europeans, and subsequent land reform, largely satisfied Kikuyu complaints. Just a pity that this came after the British had spent years breaking the latter

What resulted was your bog-standard African despotism: strong central authority, autocratic president, massive corruption and zero attempt to integrate ethnicities into a single nationstate. Hooray?

Manach

Two hurrahs at least.
My experience of UK academia comes from getting a history degree there, where there was a large measure of implicit and explicit hand-wringing of the colonial legacy from some quarters - during the 19thC part of it (and my admitted issue using convulated language instead of simpler terms, to push up world counts). I would assert that Congo and Kenya are close enough to compare.
Congo was highlighted as how not to run a colony - in terms of the devastation it creates in terms of native society. The primary source material, from Western accounts and pictorial images, evidence a completely immoral approach to resource stripping in Leopold's Kingdom. This did not occur to anything like the same extent in Kenya. Here there was some attempt to create a legal framework that did not treat the Kenyans as chattel and their cause was successfully championed by the local Anglican missionaries there and in London to establish schools.
The " strong central authority, autocratic president, massive corruption and zero attempt to integrate ethnicities " - could fairly well describe some European states during their own historical journey to coalease into their modern forms.

plasmaguy

Decolonisation was badly handled and many African countries were in no way prepared for decolonisation.

What replaced European colonisation, was US-USSR spheres of influence. Most African countries became either aligned with the USSR or the US, sometimes switching sides when it suited.

With each passing year after decolonisation, Africa became more and more divided and fractured.

There was also a culture of dependency on outside help, be it military, humanitarian, financial and economic.

By the mid 1990s Africa was largely seen as a basket case, incapable of fending for itself, stuck in a cycle of always requiring outside help, unable and unwilling to sort out it's own problems. The Rwandan genocide was linked to this. It was a conflict which was inherently African, yet no African nation or nations were able to intervene, and instead the blame for non intervention always goes to the West.

HavingCrack

I suppose you could argue Morocco and to a lesser extent Tanzania and Zambia have both been relatively successful and stable countries since they gained independance.

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

One minor, pedantic, point on this. Bechuanaland was never a colony, only ever a British protectorate as requested by the main tribes themselves.

They also has a fantastic president who broke racial and political barriers by marrying a white woman, which in turn made him a role model to his country and the Setswana hugely admired him and united under him which had an impact in the Botswana success story

Sadly the HIV-AIDS epidemic is beginning to threaten the Botswana story. 25% of the population are estimated to be HIV positive.

XxMCRxBabyxX

HavingCrack wrote: »

I suppose you could argue Morocco and to a lesser extent Tanzania and Zambia have both been relatively successful and stable countries since they gained independance.

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

One minor, pedantic, point on this. Bechuanaland was never a colony, only ever a British protectorate as requested by the main tribes themselves.

They also has a fantastic president who broke racial and political barriers by marrying a white woman, which in turn made him a role model to his country and the Setswana hugely admired him and united under him which had an impact in the Botswana success story

Sadly the HIV-AIDS epidemic is beginning to threaten the Botswana story. 25% of the population are estimated to be HIV positive.

That's not really a new thing unfortunately. Botswana was the AIDS capital of the world for a long time but has lost that title now, to where I can't remember. A huge effort has been made in Botswana for years to fight that and it does seem to be helping.

dubhthach

Just regards to HIV, Hans Rosling gave a brillant talk at TED about HIV in Southern Africa. Specifically how in wartorn countries such as Congo have alot lower rate then countries like Bostwana -- in warzones no drug treatment available, infected die alot quicker before they can pass on)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qRtDnsnSwk

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

My experience of UK academia comes from getting a history degree there, where there was a large measure of implicit and explicit hand-wringing of the colonial legacy from some quarters - during the 19thC part of it

The purpose of my last post was to ask how the book was received in these anti-colonial quarters. I can't imagine them being hostile. The critical reviews that I read, from the mainstream press, tended to come from the right, who may not represent academia

I also noticed that deplorable tendency for 'BBC-ification' of history, in which two opposing histories must be presented to the reader. I'm sorry, but a history of those victims of British repression in Kenya does not need to delve into the experiences of the perpetrators

(Although in my own experience of British left-wingers, even the most avowedly socialist can get quite prickly and defensive when the Empire's behaviour in put under the sort of blowtorch intense scrutiny that Elkin provided. General vague condemnations are most more comfortable than explicit accounts of abuse. In my experience)

Congo was highlighted as how not to run a colony - in terms of the devastation it creates in terms of native society. The primary source material, from Western accounts and pictorial images, evidence a completely immoral approach to resource stripping in Leopold's Kingdom. This did not occur to anything like the same extent in Kenya. Here there was some attempt to create a legal framework that did not treat the Kenyans as chattel and their cause was successfully championed by the local Anglican missionaries there and in London to establish schools.

Part of my point: both Kenya and the Congo experienced completely different forms of colonialism. Hence it just doesn't make any sense to suggest that Kenya could have spiralled into a Congo-esque scenario in the 1950s or 1960s

It's particularly perverse to suggest that British suppression of the one major campaign of violence (Mau Mau) was a beneficial long-term strategy, that helped Kenya avoid the Congo's fate, when this violence was a direct product of British policy and was suppressed with extreme prejudice by the authorities

The " strong central authority, autocratic president, massive corruption and zero attempt to integrate ethnicities " - could fairly well describe some European states during their own historical journey to coalease into their modern forms.

And for how long did that become the standard for European governance? Actually, scratch that. At no point over the past century has European government been characterised by the sheer corruption and incompetence of the petty African tinpots

Cavehill Red

The Scientician wrote: »

Some questions I'd like to discuss and others please feel free to post your own.

Which countries experienced the best decolonisation, and which suffered the worst?

Do the European powers still owe anything to their former colonies in Africa?

How could decolonisation have been managed better?

And the broadest question of all, leaving aside the morality of colonisation.

What lasting benefits, if any, have there been for Africa from European colonisation?

Good topic and questions. Others have posted their perspectives and I'll offer mine briefly.
It's impossible for me to rank qualities of decolonisation because whatever the nature of the handover, what followed has been so tragic for Africa as a whole.
I'm going to be highly controversial here and suggest that Africa wasn't ready for decolonisation. Europe was, post-war, divesting itself of Empires and preparing for a closer continental relationship with itself. Europe looked inward, and pulled out of the rest of the world. Some places did grasp the opportunity with both hands and do well. They weren't in Africa. Nowhere in Africa has benefited from decolonisation in the 50-70 period.
Also leaving aside the morality of colonisation, few lasting benefits of European rule have remained as is evident. I've been all over Africa, from Senegal to Ethiopia, from Alex to the Cape, and much as I love the peoples, the landscapes, the wildlife, the cultures, the continent is about as big a mess as it could be.
Constant tribal wars unique in their levels of atrocity in human conflicts; regular devastating famines. Outrageous corruption by elites; genocide; warlords; cannibal gangsters who lead children into battle buck-naked and then rape infants to cure their HIV. All imaginable horrors are in Africa, and much as I love the place and see so much beauty there, you're never more than a hundred yards, a thought away from another horror or echo of it.
Much better for all if Africa had stayed colonised a good while longer. Maybe even till today. As for today? I think the imperial powers drew the borders, had a share in leaving behind them the seeds for some of the chaos that followed, and I truly believe the moral thing to do today would be to recolonise large parts of the continent.

Manach

Reekwind wrote: »

And for how long did that become the standard for European governance? Actually, scratch that. At no point over the past century has European government been characterised by the sheer corruption and incompetence of the petty African tinpots

To expand historical knowledge beyond the 20thC there are plenty of European examples of poorly run and ineffective states such as ancience-regime of France and Tsarist Russia. In the 20thC, there were the communistic block nations, for instance Albania and Romania. Thus your conclusion does not take them into account.

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

In the 20thC, there were the communistic block nations, for instance Albania and Romania. Thus your conclusion does not take them into account.

Neither of which, or indeed any of the Eastern Bloc nations, were as impoverished or as incompetently run as the African states. Not by some distance. In fact, and the clue here is in the name, the Communist states managed to build up the sort of political structures and national bureaucracies that were typically lacking in Africa

So yeah, you have to go back to pre-capitalist societies to find a time when European standards of governance were as poor as those bequeathed to post-colonial Africa. (And even then you'd have to travel some distance - late Imperial Russia was almost certainly a more efficiently run state than some African countries are today). So does matching levels of governance in ancien regime France count as a success story in 20th C Africa?

The Scientician

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Good topic and questions. Others have posted their perspectives and I'll offer mine briefly.
It's impossible for me to rank qualities of decolonisation because whatever the nature of the handover, what followed has been so tragic for Africa as a whole.
I'm going to be highly controversial here and suggest that Africa wasn't ready for decolonisation. Europe was, post-war, divesting itself of Empires and preparing for a closer continental relationship with itself. Europe looked inward, and pulled out of the rest of the world. Some places did grasp the opportunity with both hands and do well. They weren't in Africa. Nowhere in Africa has benefited from decolonisation in the 50-70 period.
Also leaving aside the morality of colonisation, few lasting benefits of European rule have remained as is evident. I've been all over Africa, from Senegal to Ethiopia, from Alex to the Cape, and much as I love the peoples, the landscapes, the wildlife, the cultures, the continent is about as big a mess as it could be.
Constant tribal wars unique in their levels of atrocity in human conflicts; regular devastating famines. Outrageous corruption by elites; genocide; warlords; cannibal gangsters who lead children into battle buck-naked and then rape infants to cure their HIV. All imaginable horrors are in Africa, and much as I love the place and see so much beauty there, you're never more than a hundred yards, a thought away from another horror or echo of it.
Much better for all if Africa had stayed colonised a good while longer. Maybe even till today. As for today? I think the imperial powers drew the borders, had a share in leaving behind them the seeds for some of the chaos that followed, and I truly believe the moral thing to do today would be to recolonise large parts of the continent.

Your perspective is an interesting one. Much decolonisation did in fact happen a lot faster than the colonisers wanted. The Wind Of Change speech referred to in my OP addressed the facts that African nations wanted autonomy and Britain (and France etc.) no longer had the will or resources to delay or stop them. I believe some of the local intelligentsia in Congo proposed a 30 year organised decolonisation but this idea was swept aside.

I don't think now it would be socially or politically tenable nor practically feasible for European powers to start recolonising Africa, nor would it be effective in my opinion. It will be interesting, however, to see what role China and other nations will have to play during this century in Africa as globalisation presumably increases.

Reekwind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Much better for all if Africa had stayed colonised a good while longer. Maybe even till today. As for today? I think the imperial powers drew the borders, had a share in leaving behind them the seeds for some of the chaos that followed, and I truly believe the moral thing to do today would be to recolonise large parts of the continent.

I missed this

What you are saying is that colonialism caused a lot of problems for Africa and that the solution to these problems is the recolonisation of the continent? Really?

Here's the thing: Africa was not some happy Funderland until 1950, with all the natives grinning away under the benevolent watch of the caring White Man. The malign post-colonial problems arose not because the empires botched their exit strategies (although they did) but because the continent had been shocking managed for the previous five decades. European colonial rule in Africa rested on racism, economic backwardness, authoritarianism, divide and rule tactics and the application of intense violence when required

It's not some flaw in Africans or African society that is holding the continent back but the structures and traditions imparted by their European ex-masters. So no, I don't think inviting the White Man, with his civilising mission, back in is going to help

The Scientician wrote:

It will be interesting, however, to see what role China and other nations will have to play during this century in Africa as globalisation presumably increases.

Given the experiences of the previous 150 years, it's hard to see how any further outside influence can be helpful

Cavehill Red

The Scientician wrote: »

Your perspective is an interesting one. Much decolonisation did in fact happen a lot faster than the colonisers wanted. The Wind Of Change speech referred to in my OP addressed the facts that African nations wanted autonomy and Britain (and France etc.) no longer had the will or resources to delay or stop them. I believe some of the local intelligentsia in Congo proposed a 30 year organised decolonisation but this idea was swept aside.

I don't think now it would be socially or politically tenable nor practically feasible for European powers to start recolonising Africa, nor would it be effective in my opinion. It will be interesting, however, to see what role China and other nations will have to play during this century in Africa as globalisation presumably increases.

I entirely concur with you that there is neither the political climate nor the political will in the West for re-colonisation (even though it de facto is happening in parts, with UN troops sporadically on the ground sorting out extended conflict.) However, such are the inherent weaknesses of most African states that doing nothing (or worse, the aid "solution") will simply leave Africa at the mercy of Chinese commercial interests, as you indicate.

Cavehill Red

Reekwind wrote: »

I missed this

What you are saying is that colonialism caused a lot of problems for Africa and that the solution to these problems is the recolonisation of the continent? Really?

I didn't say that at all. I noted that colonisation caused some problems for Africa, often horrific ones. It also brought great growth, infrastructure, stability and opportunity to many Africans, something that may not be popular to say these days, but is demonstrably true.

Reekwind wrote: »

Here's the thing: Africa was not some happy Funderland until 1950, with all the natives grinning away under the benevolent watch of the caring White Man.

Whereas afterwards?

Reekwind wrote: »

The malign post-colonial problems arose not because the empires botched their exit strategies (although they did) but because the continent had been shocking managed for the previous five decades. European colonial rule in Africa rested on racism, economic backwardness, authoritarianism, divide and rule tactics and the application of intense violence when required

Africa's problems are not all evil whitey's fault. Africa's problems today are the result of the most recent five or six decades - a period marked by independence, rule of gangsters, famine, civil and international wars, and a marked collapse in living standards across the continent.

Reekwind wrote: »

It's not some flaw in Africans or African society that is holding the continent back but the structures and traditions imparted by their European ex-masters. So no, I don't think inviting the White Man, with his civilising mission, back in is going to help

Given the experiences of the previous 150 years, it's hard to see how any further outside influence can be helpful

Nevertheless, in a globalised world, no continent can be cut off. Africa will be influenced for good or ill. Unlike the Chinese, Europe at least has offered Africa goodwill, hundreds of billions if not trillions in aid, and accommodated millions of its refugees. If I were African, I know who I'd rather see coming into town.

Reekwind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Africa's problems are not all evil whitey's fault. Africa's problems today are the result of the most recent five or six decades - a period marked by independence, rule of gangsters, famine, civil and international wars, and a marked collapse in living standards across the continent

Which is akin to taking up the story of a rape victim at the point in which they enter hospital and then blaming them for their wounds/trauma

Africa's post-independence plight cannot be divorced from decades of colonial rule. Had the continent been governed fairly and been left with robust state/democratic structures then this might be different. But it wasn't. The European empires conquered and grossly misruled Africa for decades, before leaving it in either indecent haste or a flurry of bullets. They are directly responsible for putting in place the conditions that have produced so much misery since

All societies are products of the conditions that birth them. African states today are merely applying the principles and methods of governance that they were taught by their former masters. There is very little that Africans have done to themselves in the past half century (from autocracy, corruption, war and ethnic strife, etc) that was not part of the standard European template for colonial rule

Nevertheless, in a globalised world, no continent can be cut off. Africa will be influenced for good or ill. Unlike the Chinese, Europe at least has offered Africa goodwill, hundreds of billions if not trillions in aid, and accommodated millions of its refugees. If I were African, I know who I'd rather see coming into town.

If you were African you'd know who'd already been to town and the mess that they'd left. You'd also know of the previous half century of neo-colonialism: unequal trading arrangements, coups and influence peddling, arms trading, client states, etc, etc. It is quite bizarre to suggest that Europe has cleaner hands than China when the former has been exploiting Africa for over a century now

You try telling people in Algeria or Kenya or the Congo or Nigeria or Namibia or Egypt or Sudan or wherever about the benevolence of Europeans

Cavehill Red

Quick question before we proceed further, RW.

How many times have you visited Africa, and where in Africa have you been?

Reekwind

Never been. I'm not going to ask you the same question because I believe it to be entirely irrelevant to a discussion on history

Cavehill Red

Reekwind wrote: »

Never been. I'm not going to ask you the same question because I believe it to be entirely irrelevant to a discussion on history

On the contrary, if you're going to attribute opinions to Africans it is relevant to know what your exposure to Africa actually is.
I've visited 14 different African countries on over 20 visits extended over a 2 decade period. Some countries, like Zimbabwe, South Africa or Egypt I've visited multiple times. In countries like Ethiopia I've personally witnessed the encroachment of Chinese interests and the reaction of the local populace. I can assure you that the African sentiment is almost universally negative towards this development (except among government circles), and in many postcolonial states, such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, Senegal, etc, there is huge nostalgia for colonial periods, and among younger Africans both an aspiration to live in Europe and a desire to see greater European involvement in their countries.

jonniebgood1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On the contrary, if you're going to attribute opinions to Africans it is relevant to know what your exposure to Africa actually is.
I've visited 14 different African countries on over 20 visits extended over a 2 decade period. Some countries, like Zimbabwe, South Africa or Egypt I've visited multiple times. In countries like Ethiopia I've personally witnessed the encroachment of Chinese interests and the reaction of the local populace. I can assure you that the African sentiment is almost universally negative towards this development (except among government circles), and in many postcolonial states, such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, Senegal, etc, there is huge nostalgia for colonial periods, and among younger Africans both an aspiration to live in Europe and a desire to see greater European involvement in their countries.

The aspiration of most African youth would seem to me to be more about money than a wish for colonial rule. i.e. the fondness for western influences is due to the wish for money and things that are not reachable. It could be also extrapulated that this desire amongst ordinary people is reflected in some of the manic spending patterns of some of the leaders.

In terms of us talking about the history of how colonial rule ended and the subsequent period I don't think it is necessary to have first hand experience of the countries although any relevant accounts would be fascinating. The reaction to Chinese interest is something that you should expand on.

Reekwind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On the contrary, if you're going to attribute opinions to Africans it is relevant to know what your exposure to Africa actually is

And who said that I've not been speaking to Africans?

I've visited 14 different African countries on over 20 visits extended over a 2 decade period. Some countries, like Zimbabwe, South Africa or Egypt I've visited multiple times. In countries like Ethiopia I've personally witnessed the encroachment of Chinese interests and the reaction of the local populace. I can assure you that the African sentiment is almost universally negative towards this development (except among government circles), and in many postcolonial states, such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, Senegal, etc, there is huge nostalgia for colonial periods, and among younger Africans both an aspiration to live in Europe and a desire to see greater European involvement in their countries.

Out of curiosity, what capacity did you visit Africa in?

I'd also be curious to know just what the continent was like a century ago. How did you find those colonial administrations when you jumped in your time machine? It must have been fascinating to witness the dismantlement of empire. Reading about a topic clearly being no longer sufficient to pass comment of course

As for the Chinese, I'll start to get excited when they start bombing villages into submission, interning civilian populations in concentration camps or driving populations to die in the desert

Cavehill Red

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The aspiration of most African youth would seem to me to be more about money than a wish for colonial rule. i.e. the fondness for western influences is due to the wish for money and things that are not reachable. It could be also extrapulated that this desire amongst ordinary people is reflected in some of the manic spending patterns of some of the leaders.

Kleptomania among oligarchs is nothing new and hardly restricted to either Africa nor those influenced by the West. Consider Russia, Ferdinand Marcos, even the Roman Emperors.
Given the tremendous poverty and difficulty of life for so many Africans, of course a desire to transcend those grinding realities proliferates. The ubiquitous spread of Western culture also is influential, but less so than in many other parts of the world. In Ethiopia, one might go weeks without ever hearing non-indigenous music or seeing non-indigenous entertainment. It's somewhat similar in parts of West Africa, where often the influence is more Caribbean (reggae, etc) than it is Western in the European/North American sense.
I've noticed in many parts of Southern Africa (Swazi, Zim, Zam, Moz, parts of SA) a genuine nostalgia for either the colonial period or white rule periods, based primarily on a regret that infrastructure, employment opportunities and living standards have fallen so drastically. This is not to be confused with a desire to be re-colonised; people the world over desire to be free. However, I've encountered, and not just among the older generations, a widespread sentiment that independence/black rule was often rushed, and has had negative consequences. "We just wanted to be equal with the whites. We did not want them to leave and have the gangsters and Marxists take over," one Mozambican memorably told me once.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In terms of us talking about the history of how colonial rule ended and the subsequent period I don't think it is necessary to have first hand experience of the countries although any relevant accounts would be fascinating. The reaction to Chinese interest is something that you should expand on.

I would largely concur that one need not have had direct exposure to Africa to discuss it. However, I am reading some posts here (not yours, I hasten to add) which attribute opinions to Africans that frankly don't tally with my fairly extensive experience of visiting the continent.
As for China, Ethiopia is a good case study. There has been some excellent reportage on the issue by the BBC in recent years but it generally goes uncovered. Thousands of farmers have been driven off their lands by the state so that Chinese enterprises (and Saudi ones too, even Egyptian ones now) can take over the land in massive farms. Often, even the infrastructural work is carried out by imported Chinese workers, to the chagrin of those stripped of their land and rendered unemployed. Produce and profits are all exported, and the entities enjoy tax breaks (allegedly obtained in return for kickbacks to the political class railroading these developments through.)
The resentment is profound, and not limited to the rural areas affected. In Lalibela, a restauranteur was delighted to hear I was Irish, because apparently Irish tourism people have been going there for the past few years offering advice on building up their tourism infrastructure, which he compared favourably to the Chinese intervention. On the one hand, the Irish were seen as interested in helping and being genuinely invested in the locals, while the Chinese were seen by contrast as "locusts stealing food from our people."

pedroeibar1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

.......... and the entities enjoy tax breaks (allegedly obtained in return for kickbacks to the political class railroading these developments through.)

That is possibly more than 'allegedly' particularly when one looks at the real estate - particularly in Paris - acquired by African leaders.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The resentment is profound, and not limited to the rural areas affected. In Lalibela, a restauranteur was delighted to hear I was Irish, because apparently Irish tourism people have been going there for the past few years offering advice on building up their tourism infrastructure, which he compared favourably to the Chinese intervention. On the one hand, the Irish were seen as interested in helping and being genuinely invested in the locals, while the Chinese were seen by contrast as "locusts stealing food from our people."

Any Irish person is invariably welcomed in African countries – with the exception of a few coastal regions in W. Africa, due to the activity of Irish-registered supertrawlers. A senior government (African) official once said to me, ‘The Irish came with schoolbooks and rosaries, the British with revolvers on their hips.’ Apart from the private sector, even at a semi-State level Aer Lingus, the ESB, Bord na Mona, etc, have done development work in many African countries. Mugabe was educated by the Jesuits and the Irish connection helped O’Reilly /Heinz set up in Zimbabwe. Nigeria is Guinness’ second biggest market.
Maybe Jimmy Rabbitte in the Commitments was on to something when he said ‘Do you not get it, lads? The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin.’

I know it is a generalization, but having worked in several African and E European countries, I have come to a belief that the social and work ethics are very different in Africa. An African feels duty bound to his family/tribe and will employ a nephew/niece for life, regardless of performance. In E Europe, a businessman will give a relative a break, but will quickly fire if performance is not forthcoming.
As for corruption, well, TAB.

Reekwind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I've noticed in many parts of Southern Africa (Swazi, Zim, Zam, Moz, parts of SA) a genuine nostalgia for either the colonial period or white rule periods, based primarily on a regret that infrastructure, employment opportunities and living standards have fallen so drastically. This is not to be confused with a desire to be re-colonised; people the world over desire to be free

And Stalin is today the second most popular Russian leader in history (despite not actually being Russian). Does that mean that Russians crave crushing autocracy, crashing living standards and mass famine? Of course not. Nostalgia tells us far more about people today than it does conditions several decades ago. It's also pretty irrelevant... unless you've been interviewing people who lived through the colonial period, of course

As for China, Ethiopia is a good case study. There has been some excellent reportage on the issue by the BBC in recent years but it generally goes uncovered. Thousands of farmers have been driven off their lands by the state so that Chinese enterprises (and Saudi ones too, even Egyptian ones now) can take over the land in massive farms. Often, even the infrastructural work is carried out by imported Chinese workers, to the chagrin of those stripped of their land and rendered unemployed. Produce and profits are all exported, and the entities enjoy tax breaks (allegedly obtained in return for kickbacks to the political class railroading these developments through

Completely unlike US and European companies, no? I mean you'd never find the likes of Firestone making use of child labour while using kickbacks to avoid taxes in Liberia. Or see Washington heavily sponsoring Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire in order to obtain favourable mineral concessions. And this isn't even touching on the likes of the Nestle scandal or colonial-era land seizures. But then I read about these in books, so what do I know?

And again, in what capacity did you travel across Africa? Sounds like a fantastic experience but I'd be interested in knowing whether it was work related

Cavehill Red

Reekwind wrote: »

And Stalin is today the second most popular Russian leader in history (despite not actually being Russian). Does that mean that Russians crave crushing autocracy, crashing living standards and mass famine? Of course not. Nostalgia tells us far more about people today than it does conditions several decades ago. It's also pretty irrelevant... unless you've been interviewing people who lived through the colonial period, of course

In Moz, the colonial period ended in the mid-Seventies. In Zim and obviously SA, the white rule period ended even later. No so difficult to find people who recall those times.

Reekwind wrote: »

Completely unlike US and European companies, no? I mean you'd never find the likes of Firestone making use of child labour while using kickbacks to avoid taxes in Liberia. Or see Washington heavily sponsoring Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire in order to obtain favourable mineral concessions. And this isn't even touching on the likes of the Nestle scandal or colonial-era land seizures. But then I read about these in books, so what do I know?

Your average African is much more likely to have encountered US Aid parcels than Washington political sponsorship. This likely skews their view of the West also.

Reekwind wrote: »

And again, in what capacity did you travel across Africa? Sounds like a fantastic experience but I'd be interested in knowing whether it was work related

I've been for work, for holidays and in a personal capacity.

Reekwind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

In Moz, the colonial period ended in the mid-Seventies. In Zim and obviously SA, the white rule period ended even later. No so difficult to find people who recall those times

And both the GDR and USSR collapsed in the late 1980s. Yet in Germany and Russia you will find people who are strongly nostalgic for the Communist states. Nobody seriously wants to return to those days though: this rose-tinted view of the past is just an expression of dissatisfaction with today's climate rather than a serious desire to enslave themselves again

BTW how many blacks in SA and Zim are eager to return to apartheid states?

Your average African is much more likely to have encountered US Aid parcels than Washington political sponsorship. This likely skews their view of the West also

So your problem with the Chinese isn't so much the exploitation but the lack of charity gestures to accompany it?

To be honest, I'm not going to get into a debate as to how Western charity aid is at best a sticking plaster and at worst hindering development; but I will point out the nonsensical scenario of countless Westerners giving €5 a month while Western governments and companies consistently screw over continent through political interference, economic exploitation and deeply unfair trading arrangements. One can't help but have a sneaking, and somewhat perverse, admiration for the Chinese in not bothering with the hypocrisy

I've been for work, for holidays and in a personal capacity.

It is, as you may have guessed, the work that interests me. You mind if I ask what sector/industry you were employed in in Africa?

Cavehill Red

Reekwind wrote: »

And both the GDR and USSR collapsed in the late 1980s. Yet in Germany and Russia you will find people who are strongly nostalgic for the Communist states. Nobody seriously wants to return to those days though: this rose-tinted view of the past is just an expression of dissatisfaction with today's climate rather than a serious desire to enslave themselves again

Again, how do you know this? How can you assert with any credibility what the Russian people want? It's perfectly arguable that, in the case of Russia, the desire to support Putin, the cult of personality that surrounds him and the increasing autocracy of the Russian state IS a return to Soviet values.

Reekwind wrote: »

BTW how many blacks in SA and Zim are eager to return to apartheid states?

Who knows? No one's asked them.

Reekwind wrote: »

So your problem with the Chinese isn't so much the exploitation but the lack of charity gestures to accompany it?

MY problem with China is their incursion into sovereign Tibet and their human rights violations. AFRICAN problems with China revolve again around human rights abuses and their taking of land from indigenous farmers.

Reekwind wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not going to get into a debate as to how Western charity aid is at best a sticking plaster and at worst hindering development; but I will point out the nonsensical scenario of countless Westerners giving €5 a month while Western governments and companies consistently screw over continent through political interference, economic exploitation and deeply unfair trading arrangements. One can't help but have a sneaking, and somewhat perverse, admiration for the Chinese in not bothering with the hypocrisy

OK, we're closing in on something here. It's becoming evident that you simply have a doctrinaire hatred of the West in the context of Africa. That doesn't tally with either reality nor with African sentiments as I've experienced them.

Reekwind wrote: »

It is, as you may have guessed, the work that interests me. You mind if I ask what sector/industry you were employed in in Africa?

Yes, I do mind. None of your business.

Reekwind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Again, how do you know this? How can you assert with any credibility what the Russian people want?

Because there was a vote on it. (Although correction: he came third in that one). It's not the only such poll in which Stalin or the USSR rate highly, I'll link to more if you're really interested. With regards Germany, it's a pretty well documented attitude. They even have a word for that sort of nostalgia: Ostalgie

(Gosh, isn't it amazing what you can learn from reading things and talking to ex-pats? It's almost possible to talk about a subject without having criss-crossed a continent first)

The point of all this being that nostalgia says nothing about what actually happened in the past

It's perfectly arguable that, in the case of Russia, the desire to support Putin, the cult of personality that surrounds him and the increasing autocracy of the Russian state IS a return to Soviet values

Yeah, I'm not going into that sort of discussion. The idea that Russians somehow desire repression and a strong autocratic ruler is borderline racist

Who knows? No one's asked them.

So are people in Zimbabwe or South Africa not nostalgic for colonialism? If so, why did you bring them up?

As it is of course these are two cases where a huge chunk of the population do remember what white rule was actually like and must have clear (untainted) memories of just what that entailed. Now I've not asked the question and you've not asked the question but it's pretty easy to predict how black South Africans would react to a proposed return to colonial norms

MY problem with China is their incursion into sovereign Tibet and their human rights violations. AFRICAN problems with China revolve again around human rights abuses and their taking of land from indigenous farmers.

I just want to note the irony of slating Chinese actions in Tibet in a thread about European colonialism while arguing that the West should re-colonise Africa

But again you have avoided my point. You contrast Western and Chinese approaches while ignoring all that is unsavoury, exploitative and unacceptable about the former. This is disingenuous at best. The way you tell it you'd think that the Chinese were the only ones staging mass evictions in East Africa

OK, we're closing in on something here. It's becoming evident that you simply have a doctrinaire hatred of the West in the context of Africa. That doesn't tally with either reality nor with African sentiments as I've experienced them.

I'm not sure that makes sense but we'll roll with it. My "hatred of the West in the context of Africa" has nothing to do with doctrine and isn't even hatred. I've got no idea where you pulled either of those from

What should be blindly evident from all of this is that I believe that:

1) European conquest of Africa was disastrous for the latter. Colonial rule across the continent was typified by mis-rule, racism and repression
2) Decades of poor governance was compounded by the swift exit of the empires. This left immense challenges to the post-independence African governments
3) In the half century since decolonisation Western governments have acted in such a way that is contrary to Africa's interests. We could go through the roll call of sponsored coups, tot up the vast numbers of armaments sold, delve into the unequal trade arrangements, explore some case studies of pretty shady corporate practices, etc, etc
4) Western NGO aid to Africa has spectacularly failed to drive any real improvements in the continents economic development. It's not an original observation; here James Shikwati argues the case
5) I don't particularly like the idea of the Chinese joining in on these fun and games but I do find the idea that they are any worse than all of the above to be pretty untenable. The idea that we should re-colonise Africa to save it from Beijing is laughable

Is that a doctrine? Nope. Each step has been informed by my reading over the years. None of this, with the exception of point 4, should be in any way controversial. Nor does it really amount to hatred; cynicism of Western motives, yes, but hardly hate. Call it an informed pessimism. I'll take that over a hopelessly biased or one-eyed approach any day

Yes, I do mind. None of your business.

*Shrugs* Fair enough. I'm going to continue with my assumption then that you were/are working for either a NGO charity or a Western multinational. Probably the latter. It would explain your hostility to the Chinese (read: the competition) as well as your unwillingness to face the West's track record of exploitation in Africa

looksee

I went to Zambia in 1968 as part of the Zambianisation programme. I would be the first to admit that as a young woman (21) with very limited political interest or information I can only comment on what I saw, rather than the political implications.

Thousands of people were sent from the UK and also Ireland by the British Government to take up jobs for which there were no trained local people. They were paid a local wage, but the British Government also paid an amount which brought the wage up to a UK equivalent, this money stayed in the UK until the contract was finished. They were two year contracts which were only renewed if the Zambian government felt the need was still there. I was a stenographer with four years work experience. Most of the people who were there would have been teachers and health workers.

Subsequently I lived in Kenya under similar circumstances.

I was only there for around 4 -5 years, people I know who stayed the longest were phased out in the late 70s. One woman, a friend of mine, who stayed till the end is still in contact with ex-pupils and was invited to go to Kenya last year when several ex-pupils took turns to accommodate her and give her a wonderful holiday all over Kenya.

I was living there only a few years after independence and in Kenya, in an area where the Mau Mau had been active. I never felt any threat or even serious resentment. I am not saying there was no resentment, just that it was never obvious to me. I worked with and for black Africans for whom I had the greatest respect, but also some who were only interested in what they could do for themselves. Sounds familiar!

The general attitude of Europeans on these contracts was to treat local people as they would have dealt with people at home. There was no particular racism in either direction. Of course you would get the occasional loudmouthed white who would hold forth (privately) about the unreliability (mostly) of the Africans, but there was little patience with that kind of attitude and they did not get support. In the same way you would occasionally get an aggressive - intellectually, not physically - African, but they were rare. Usually a school Principal would be black, with teachers of all nationalities, the local black teachers gradually taking over as they qualified.

At the time I was there it seemed as though the countries would make their way in the world, evidently this sense of progress was false. I do know that at that time they were both amazing places to live.

None of what I have said gives any definitive information about Africa at that time. You would have to take into account my naivety and lack of political education. Nonetheless it offers a sense of what it was like to be there at a time of great change.

Cavehill Red

Reekwind wrote: »

Because there was a vote on it. (Although correction: he came third in that one). It's not the only such poll in which Stalin or the USSR rate highly, I'll link to more if you're really interested. With regards Germany, it's a pretty well documented attitude. They even have a word for that sort of nostalgia: Ostalgie

You've misunderstood my point. I didn't dispute Stalin has been subject to a surge in popularity. I asked how you can state with any authority that such a surge is not indicative of a yearning for Soviet times.

Reekwind wrote: »

Gosh, isn't it amazing what you can learn from reading things and talking to ex-pats? It's almost possible to talk about a subject without having criss-crossed a continent first)

The point of all this being that nostalgia says nothing about what actually happened in the past

Breathtakingly nonsensical. Nostalgia is defined as a yearning for the past. Furthermore, it's disputable whether nostalgia is the only element of Russian desire for autocracy.

Reekwind wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not going into that sort of discussion. The idea that Russians somehow desire repression and a strong autocratic ruler is borderline racist

Catch a grip, will you.

Reekwind wrote: »

So are people in Zimbabwe or South Africa not nostalgic for colonialism? If so, why did you bring them up?

Many in my experience are. You asked how many, and I pointed out there has been no formal assessment of that, ever.

Reekwind wrote: »

As it is of course these are two cases where a huge chunk of the population do remember what white rule was actually like and must have clear (untainted) memories of just what that entailed. Now I've not asked the question and you've not asked the question but it's pretty easy to predict how black South Africans would react to a proposed return to colonial norms

It depends what you mean by 'colonial norms'. SA was not a colony in the way most other African countries were. It was ruled by an indigenous minority. Would South Africans wish to be ruled by foreign nationals? Clearly not, neither under black nor white rule, since they strongly resisted foreign influence and developed strong self-sufficiency during the apartheid era. This is not the same as saying that many South Africans have not suffered as a result of majority rule, and that some regret how that proceeded.

Reekwind wrote: »

I just want to note the irony of slating Chinese actions in Tibet in a thread about European colonialism while arguing that the West should re-colonise Africa

No irony at all. China has no business being in sovereign Tibet. However, having not only created the seeds of many current African problems but in many cases having created the very nations themselves, Europe very definitely has a moral and historical reason for engagement with Africa. The form that engagement should take is debatable. I'm entirely aware that my proposal of recolonisation is controversial. It is intended to spark debate. It is unlikely to be put into practice, despite the fact that in many ways it is already happening (Chinese, UN involvement) and the fact that in many cases it is desirable (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Chad, etc.)

Reekwind wrote: »

But again you have avoided my point. You contrast Western and Chinese approaches while ignoring all that is unsavoury, exploitative and unacceptable about the former. This is disingenuous at best. The way you tell it you'd think that the Chinese were the only ones staging mass evictions in East Africa

Certainly not. I highlighted the Chinese to make the point that recolonisation is already happening. If we want to talk about selective reasoning and land clearances, I note you make no mention of white farmers being hounded off their land in Zim, SA and Moz.

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm not sure that makes sense but we'll roll with it. My "hatred of the West in the context of Africa" has nothing to do with doctrine and isn't even hatred. I've got no idea where you pulled either of those from

It's the entire thrust of your argument, such as it is.

Reekwind wrote: »

What should be blindly evident from all of this is that I believe that:

1) European conquest of Africa was disastrous for the latter. Colonial rule across the continent was typified by mis-rule, racism and repression
2) Decades of poor governance was compounded by the swift exit of the empires. This left immense challenges to the post-independence African governments
3) In the half century since decolonisation Western governments have acted in such a way that is contrary to Africa's interests. We could go through the roll call of sponsored coups, tot up the vast numbers of armaments sold, delve into the unequal trade arrangements, explore some case studies of pretty shady corporate practices, etc, etc
4) Western NGO aid to Africa has spectacularly failed to drive any real improvements in the continents economic development. It's not an original observation; here James Shikwati argues the case
5) I don't particularly like the idea of the Chinese joining in on these fun and games but I do find the idea that they are any worse than all of the above to be pretty untenable. The idea that we should re-colonise Africa to save it from Beijing is laughable

I largely disagree with all of your points, with the exception of no. 4.

Reekwind wrote: »

Is that a doctrine? Nope. Each step has been informed by my reading over the years. None of this, with the exception of point 4, should be in any way controversial. Nor does it really amount to hatred; cynicism of Western motives, yes, but hardly hate. Call it an informed pessimism. I'll take that over a hopelessly biased or one-eyed approach any day

Hilarious. Your opinions expressed are both hopelessly biased (against historical and current Western involvement in Africa) and one-eyed (in how you contrast that involvement with current Chinese involvement.)

Reekwind wrote: »

*Shrugs* Fair enough. I'm going to continue with my assumption then that you were/are working for either a NGO charity or a Western multinational. Probably the latter. It would explain your hostility to the Chinese (read: the competition) as well as your unwillingness to face the West's track record of exploitation in Africa

And you're wrong in that assumption, just as you're wrong about most of your assumptions about Africa. You really should visit the continent. It might open your eyes somewhat.

Cavehill Red

Interesting article and even more interesting discussion about Portuguese 'recolonisation' in Moz on the Beeb.

Reekwind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You've misunderstood my point. I didn't dispute Stalin has been subject to a surge in popularity. I asked how you can state with any authority that such a surge is not indicative of a yearning for Soviet times

You mean why do Russians not want to recreate a system that they were so eager to dismantle two decades ago? Leaving aside the obvious (ie, it's rare in the extreme for a population to renounce democratic freedoms that it has fought for) one obvious indicator would be the continual failure of the CPRF to capture office via the ballot box. But really, in this case common sense should prevail

Breathtakingly nonsensical. Nostalgia is defined as a yearning for the past. Furthermore, it's disputable whether nostalgia is the only element of Russian desire for autocracy

As I say, I'm not even going to entertain your notion that Russians inherently crave the whip. It's an argument built solely on stereotypes and ignorance

But as for nostalgia, I'm afraid that you don't get to write the definitions. A key component of nostalgia is the idealisation of the past. It evokes only happy memories; you can't, by definition, be nostalgic for an unhappy period. In our context, anyone who is nostalgic for a former society/state is focused on the positives while, often unconsciously, ignoring or downplaying the negatives. This is particularly true when people have never directly experienced the previous 'golden age'

Many in my experience are. You asked how many, and I pointed out there has been no formal assessment of that, ever.

Now you're being obtuse and ignoring context. If it makes you happier then I'll rephrase: 'Roughly how many black South Africans or Zimbabweans that you have spoken to are eager for a return to apartheid states?'

It depends what you mean by 'colonial norms'. SA was not a colony in the way most other African countries were. It was ruled by an indigenous minority

And explicitly racist practices and laws were common to both 'white ruled' colonies and those governed directly from London. Racism was inherent in the colonial project. So I repeat: do you think that many black South Africans would support a state that systematically discriminates against them?

However, having not only created the seeds of many current African problems but in many cases having created the very nations themselves, Europe very definitely has a moral and historical reason for engagement with Africa

And here we return to the central absurdity: "Europe's historical reason for engagement with Africa" is predominately one of conquest, mismanagement and exploitation... therefore Europe has reason for continued meddling in African affairs (up to open recolonisation). Really? What possible moral right does Europe have to interfere in Africa?

Certainly not. I highlighted the Chinese to make the point that recolonisation is already happening.

Some call it neo-colonialism. And it's been happening for some several decades now. The Chinese are actually quite late in the game. Again, I fail to see the difference between what China is doing and what the West's track record over the past half a century. Can you distinguish between the two?

If we want to talk about selective reasoning and land clearances, I note you make no mention of white farmers being hounded off their land in Zim, SA and Moz.

Relevance, please? Is this an example of re-colonisation? Is this being driven by foreign firms?

Hilarious. Your opinions expressed are both hopelessly biased (against historical and current Western involvement in Africa) and one-eyed (in how you contrast that involvement with current Chinese involvement.)

It's tough to take accusations of bias from someone who refuses to accept the scale of the damage wrought by the European empires on Africa, while maintaining some ingrained notions of Western European superiority over a whole list of peoples - Africans, the Russians and the Chinese. I can see that touring Africa has really opened your mind

Unfortunately it's not done much to address many of the points I've raised over the past several posts. We haven't really progressed since post #32 and, given the resort to personal insults, are unlikely to do so in future

Cavehill Red

Reekwind wrote: »

You mean why do Russians not want to recreate a system that they were so eager to dismantle two decades ago? Leaving aside the obvious (ie, it's rare in the extreme for a population to renounce democratic freedoms that it has fought for) one obvious indicator would be the continual failure of the CPRF to capture office via the ballot box. But really, in this case common sense should prevail

No, again that's not what I said or meant. It's entirely arguable, as I've already stated, to posit that Putin's regime represents a return to Soviet values (hurtling towards a one-party state under an autocratic leader.) That it isn't the CPRF is irrelevant.

Reekwind wrote: »

As I say, I'm not even going to entertain your notion that Russians inherently crave the whip. It's an argument built solely on stereotypes and ignorance

Anything but. I lived in Belarus during its first year of independence, and have visited Russia many times. Again, may I ask, how often have you been?

Reekwind wrote: »

But as for nostalgia, I'm afraid that you don't get to write the definitions. A key component of nostalgia is the idealisation of the past. It evokes only happy memories; you can't, by definition, be nostalgic for an unhappy period. In our context, anyone who is nostalgic for a former society/state is focused on the positives while, often unconsciously, ignoring or downplaying the negatives. This is particularly true when people have never directly experienced the previous 'golden age'

Here's a dictionary definition, then:
nos·tal·gia
   [no-stal-juh, -jee-uh, nuh-] Show IPA
noun
1.
a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time: a nostalgia for his college days.
2.
something that elicits or displays nostalgia.

I don't see how that's notably different from what I wrote.

Reekwind wrote: »

Now you're being obtuse and ignoring context. If it makes you happier then I'll rephrase: 'Roughly how many black South Africans or Zimbabweans that you have spoken to are eager for a return to apartheid states?'

Many from both countries have overtly told me that things were much better for them personally under the former regimes, especially in Zim. In SA, in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo especially, I've heard this baldly stated by black South Africans. There is widespread disillusionment with how ANC rule has panned out in those regions. As for Zim, I've not heard anyone who wasn't a signed up Zanu member say anything else, but then again people there are quite circumspect unless they know and trust who they're talking to.

Reekwind wrote: »

And explicitly racist practices and laws were common to both 'white ruled' colonies and those governed directly from London. Racism was inherent in the colonial project. So I repeat: do you think that many black South Africans would support a state that systematically discriminates against them?

That's not the issue - the issue is that they felt they had better lives under those regimes, not that they wish them to return. What they want is for majority rule to work, but it hasn't.

Reekwind wrote: »

And here we return to the central absurdity: "Europe's historical reason for engagement with Africa" is predominately one of conquest, mismanagement and exploitation... therefore Europe has reason for continued meddling in African affairs (up to open recolonisation). Really? What possible moral right does Europe have to interfere in Africa?

The moral imperative to fix wrongs it created.

Reekwind wrote: »

Some call it neo-colonialism. And it's been happening for some several decades now. The Chinese are actually quite late in the game. Again, I fail to see the difference between what China is doing and what the West's track record over the past half a century. Can you distinguish between the two?

What do you believe the West's 'track record over the past half a century' is, exactly? Trillions in aid? The assistance provided by Europeans, including the poster on this thread who went to work in Zambia? Or do you just have more one-eyed evil whitey nonsense to propagate? How many Chinese aid agencies operate in Africa? How much aid has China provided to Africa?

Reekwind wrote: »

Relevance, please? Is this an example of re-colonisation? Is this being driven by foreign firms?

It's a sign of indigenous mismanagement, racism by Africans to other Africans, and the failure of African rulers. But those facts don't tally with your evil whitey theorem. It wasn't Europeans who took white farms in Zim and turned them into derelict scrub. The collapse of countries like Zim (or DRC, or, etc, etc) was not the fault of Europeans but of local leadership.

Reekwind wrote: »

It's tough to take accusations of bias from someone who refuses to accept the scale of the damage wrought by the European empires on Africa, while maintaining some ingrained notions of Western European superiority over a whole list of peoples - Africans, the Russians and the Chinese. I can see that touring Africa has really opened your mind

I don't accept your scale of damage (nor your accusation of racism, which I've now reported.) You have repeatedly failed to address the FACT that Europeans left significant infrastructure and economic stability in Africa which has been destroyed by the kleptomania of indigenous leaders. Life expectancies and quality of life has fallen drastically under AFRICAN rulers, having risen under imperial rule. It's worth comparing African postcolonial experience with those of other colonised nations in other parts of the world in this regard. Despite suffering an appalling genocide only a few decades ago, living standards and life expectancy in places like Cambodia are much higher than in most of Africa. Infrastructure in places like Vietnam are much better preserved and intact and significantly superior to what has happened to railways, roads and ports in most of Africa. You can't blame evil whitey for this. The comparative experiences of postcolonial rule in other parts of the world have built on what Europe left behind in a much more successful fashion than Africa has.

Reekwind wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not done much to address many of the points I've raised over the past several posts. We haven't really progressed since post #32 and, given the resort to personal insults, are unlikely to do so in future

I don't know what you expect by progression? I don't accept your basic premise, and I find the opinions you attribute to Africans don't tally with my own fairly extensive experience of going to Africa and speaking with the locals. Nevertheless, this is a discussion and I'm explaining my perspective and analysis based on that experience. In return, you seem stuck with a single unproven thesis that all wrong in Africa results from an Imperial experience which largely ended in the continent from 35 to 70 years ago. You cannot (and have not been able to) argue successfully that somehow the mismanagement of Africa is the fault of those who were no longer in charge and not the fault of those who were, especially when correlative experiences of postcolonial nations on other continents is so demonstrably better.

jonniebgood1

Reekwind wrote: »

It's tough to take accusations of bias from someone who refuses to accept the scale of the damage wrought by the European empires on Africa, while maintaining some ingrained notions of Western European superiority over a whole list of peoples - Africans, the Russians and the Chinese. I can see that touring Africa has really opened your mind

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't accept your scale of damage (nor your accusation of racism, which I've now reported.)

I have followed your discussion folks and you have both robustly argued your points. Any accusation above (whether perceived or real) is slight and open to interpretation given the context of the views expressed. You both argue well when sticking to the subject rather than commenting on each others bias so stick to topic and we will be all happy. Africa is a subject that I find interesting and I have enjoyed your debate.

Any problems with this should be sent by PM either to each other or to me rather than posted in thread.
Thanks
Moderator.

pedroeibar1

Personally I prefer to listen to people who have lived and/or worked in Africa as their experience is real, not academic. I cannot see the point of laying the blame of present day problems in Africa on past colonial powers, which is rather like the Irish blaming the Brits for our present IMF predicament.

Much of Africa’s problem has been created post independence by its own people – Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal are typical examples of countries that were left with viable economies and now are basket cases.

Nobody has yet meaningfully mentioned the role of economics in post-colonial ‘Africa’ (which I take to be Sub-Sahara, rather than the whole continent). Many African economies are totally dependent on one or two commodities – e.g. minerals, oil, agriculture, - the prices of which are very volatile; many national infrastructure systems are also based on bringing those commodities to market, not moving people around. Example – copper / Zambia.

Nobody has spoken of the effect of civil disobedience / school boycotts on the education of young (black) South Africans – to my mind a serious defect by the ANC. Nobody has commented on the positives/negatives of ‘affirmative action’ in the labour force.

“We spoke and acted as if, given the opportunity for self-government, we would quickly create utopias. Instead injustice, even tyranny, is rampant."
Julius Kambarage Nyerere, as quoted in David Lamb's The Africans, New York 1985.