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.