Colonial Africa

feargale

I have read a comment in another site asserting that Africa's best years were in the colonial era. Please discuss, comment, criticise.

yoke

link - https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmkwtfcALkE/V-IYRt-8v2I/AAAAAAAALHY/UqHE4jHUmaENaeI2L7WFfF8ThESYsdFNQCLcB/s1600/cong_hands_1904.jpg
A father stares at the severed hand and foot of his five-year-old daughter as punishment for failing to make the daily rubber quota, in Belgian Congo, 1904.

Peregrinus

feargale wrote: »

I have read a comment in another site asserting that Africa's best years were in the colonial era. Please discuss, comment, criticise.

Very hard to discuss, comment or criticise when no reason is offered in support of this conclusion, and nothing is said about what is meant by "best years".

If what you have relayed is the full amount of what was posted in the other site, then my comment is: this is not worth my time.

If what you have relayed is less than the full amount of what was posted in the other site, then my comment is: why are you censoring this?

Jim2007

feargale wrote: »

I have read a comment in another site asserting that Africa's best years were in the colonial era. Please discuss, comment, criticise.

This is not an exam. If you want to start a discussion, then start with a contribution, otherwise it is just trolling

feargale

yoke wrote: »

link - https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmkwtfcALkE/V-IYRt-8v2I/AAAAAAAALHY/UqHE4jHUmaENaeI2L7WFfF8ThESYsdFNQCLcB/s1600/cong_hands_1904.jpg
A father stares at the severed hand and foot of his five-year-old daughter as punishment for failing to make the daily rubber quota, in Belgian Congo, 1904.

That is the first case that occurred to me, Leopold II and the Congo. Thank you for your constructive contribution.
Would you like to say more?
Would others like to contribute? Is there any merit at all in what I read on the other site?

If I might momentarily don the mantle of the Devil's Advocate:

Take Slavery:
From the same general direction as the assertion quoted lin my OP, admittedly a right-wing direction, came the assertion that more slaves were taken from Africa to the Arab world and Turkey than were taken by Europeans to the Americas,. There was much local collusion in the latter trade. I believe that Mauretania was the last country on the planet to officially abolish slavery, in 1962, while in reality it remains rampant there. If memory serves me correctly the "abolition" in Mauretania has resulted in just one prosecution.

feargale

Jim2007 wrote: »

This is not an exam. If you want to start a discussion, then start with a contribution, otherwise it is just trolling

This started with an assertion,

yoke

feargale wrote: »

Would you like to say more?

What more is there to say?

“Were Africa’s best years in the colonial era?” - Yes, if you were a Belgian tyrant making money off rubber plantations.

If you already knew about the likes of Leopold and their actions, then I have serious misgivings about your motivation for asking this question.

Just because the Arabs did something before the Europeans doesn’t make it right. Sure it’s alright to rob the granny who lives down the street, some gang did it last week already so it’s acceptable now.

feargale

yoke wrote: »

What more is there to say?

“Were Africa’s best years in the colonial era?” - Yes, if you were a Belgian tyrant making money off rubber plantations.

If you already knew about the likes of Leopold and their actions, then I have serious misgivings about your motivation for asking this question.

Just because the Arabs did something before the Europeans doesn’t make it right. Sure it’s alright to rob the granny who lives down the street, some gang did it last week already so it’s acceptable now.

Of course what Arabs did doesn't make slavery by others right. Why should you question my motivation for asking a question? The trouble with boards.ie is that for many there can be no open-ended discussion about anything.
OK. Put it another way: was Arab slavery equally bad or worse? What era was/is better than the colonial era?

P.S. Would it ever occur to you that I might want to equip myself to answer the person who made the original assertion?

riffmongous

feargale wrote: »

That is the first case that occurred to me, Leopold II and the Congo. Thank you for your constructive contribution.
Would you like to say more?
Would others like to contribute? Is there any merit at all in what I read on the other site?

If I might momentarily don the mantle of the Devil's Advocate:

Take Slavery:
From the same general direction as the assertion quoted lin my OP, admittedly a right-wing direction, came the assertion that more slaves were taken from Africa to the Arab world and Turkey than were taken by Europeans to the Americas,. There was much local collusion in the latter trade. I believe that Mauretania was the last country on the planet to officially abolish slavery, in 1962, while in reality it remains rampant there. If memory serves me correctly the "abolition" in Mauretania has resulted in just one prosecution.

MOD: This thread is really borderline.. it's far too open-ended and if you are not willing to make any effort then why should anyone else get invested?

And then when you do finally contribute something like here, please provide a source for it, an assertion is not acceptable

Peregrinus

feargale wrote: »

Take Slavery:
From the same general direction as the assertion quoted lin my OP, admittedly a right-wing direction, came the assertion that more slaves were taken from Africa to the Arab world and Turkey than were taken by Europeans to the Americas,. There was much local collusion in the latter trade. I believe that Mauretania was the last country on the planet to officially abolish slavery, in 1962, while in reality it remains rampant there. If memory serves me correctly the "abolition" in Mauretania has resulted in just one prosecution.

How in God's name does that help the thesis? There was already a lively slave trade in Africa before the European powers came along and made it much, much worse by opening up new foreign markets for slaves, greatly increasing demand and introducing chattel slavery to new countries and new societies. Is that supposed to have made things better?

pedroeibar1

Slavery cannot be discussed while ignoring supply factors such as the role of tribal warfare. Ban slavery and it is replaced by genocide. Most of Africa is a basket-case economically, largely due to corrupt leaders and complicit global trade partners and Swiss bankers. It's a stupid thread. Are we heading in the direction of Dr. Watson?

Peregrinus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Slavery cannot be discussed while ignoring supply factors such as the role of tribal warfare. Ban slavery and it is replaced by genocide.

Only if we assume that the rate of tribal warfare is fixed, and is not affected by Western intervention.

But this is balls. The West African slave market boomed when the whiteys turned up, looking to buy large numbers and offering top dollar. Wars expanded to increase the supply of new slaves to meet booming demand. The rulers of the coastal slave-trading states used the cash they got from selling slaves to buy western arms to increase their capacity to attack their neighbours and capture more slaves. What else would you expect them to do?

Yellow_Fern

feargale wrote: »

I have read a comment in another site asserting that Africa's best years were in the colonial era. Please discuss, comment, criticise.

Africa is booming. There is enormous growth since the move away from soclalist and dictation ships in the 1990s.

yoke wrote: »

link - https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmkwtfcALkE/V-IYRt-8v2I/AAAAAAAALHY/UqHE4jHUmaENaeI2L7WFfF8ThESYsdFNQCLcB/s1600/cong_hands_1904.jpg
A father stares at the severed hand and foot of his five-year-old daughter as punishment for failing to make the daily rubber quota, in Belgian Congo, 1904.

You are cherrypicking. The DRC is the worst example of colonialism. British colonialism in East Africa did a lot of good, ending slavery and there was relatively little resource stripping and they also built rail. It wasnt all good but its a million miles from Congo

BalcombeSt4

Yes, the Algerians loved the French, they loved the unspeakable torture that happened to them, they loved the French killing hundreds of thousands of their countrymen.

Huf argued, "Such tactics sat uncomfortably with France's revolutionary history, and brought unbearable comparisons with Nazi Germany. The French national psyche would not tolerate any parallels between their experiences of occupation and their colonial mastery of Algeria."

Angolians loved the Portugues enforcing the forced cultivation of cotton, so much that they rose up in rebellion against their imperial masters. Or Guinea which became known as Portugal's Vietnam.

Kenyans had a lovely time under British Rule ...

Although some were Mau Mau guerrillas, most were victims of collective punishment that colonial authorities imposed on large areas of the country. Hundreds of thousands suffered beatings and sexal assaults during "screenings" intended to extract information about the Mau Mau threat. Later, prisoners suffered even worse mistreatment in an attempt to force them to renounce their allegiance to the insurgency and to obey commands. Significant numbers were murdered. Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". Castration by British troops and denying access to medical aid to the detainees were also widespread and common. Among the detainees who suffered severe mistreatment was Hussien Obama the grandfather of Barrack Obama the former President of the United States. According to his widow, British soldiers forced pins into his fingernails and buttocks and squeezed his testicles between metal rods and two others were castrated

I think they got it wrong, that wasn't the British in Kenya it was ISIS.

Weren't Ireland's best years under Cromwellian occupation?

Yellow_Fern

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Yes, the Algerians loved the French, they loved the unspeakable torture that happened to them, they loved the French killing hundreds of thousands of their countrymen.



Angolians loved the Portugues enforcing the forced cultivation of cotton, so much that they rose up in rebellion against their imperial masters. Or Guinea which became known as Portugal's Vietnam.

Kenyans had a lovely time under British Rule ...


I think they got it wrong, that wasn't the British in Kenya it was ISIS.

Weren't Ireland's best years under Cromwellian occupation?

Africa is an enormous place, yes there were terrible atrocities. But is a varied picture and some of the colonialist did amazing work. You can't compare Cromwell to what happened in Africa. Africa is a region where there was vastly less European influence. For example the vast majority of African arable land was never farmed by Europeans. Anyone who equates the British army of the 1950s to ISIS is a moron.

feargale

Aren't there two sides to this?
On the one hand you could say that before European colonialism Africa had one slave trade, emanating from north of the Sahara and controlled by Arabs, and then with the advent of Europeans it had two slave trades, the old one and a new one.
But are Europeans entitled to credit for abolishing slavery, or at least attempting to do so and largely succeeding? I'm thinking of the de facto continuation of slavery in places such as Sudan and Mauretania.

Yellow_Fern

feargale wrote: »

Aren't there two sides to this?
On the one hand you could say that before European colonialism Africa had one slave trade, emanating from north of the Sahara and controlled by Arabs, and then with the advent of Europeans it had two slave trades, the old one and a new one.
But are Europeans entitled to credit for abolishing slavery, or at least attempting to do so and largely succeeding? I'm thinking of the de facto continuation of slavery in places such as Sudan and Mauretania.

You are talking about many different countries run by different colonial powers. You cant treat them as a unified force.

donaghs

yoke wrote: »

link - https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmkwtfcALkE/V-IYRt-8v2I/AAAAAAAALHY/UqHE4jHUmaENaeI2L7WFfF8ThESYsdFNQCLcB/s1600/cong_hands_1904.jpg
A father stares at the severed hand and foot of his five-year-old daughter as punishment for failing to make the daily rubber quota, in Belgian Congo, 1904.

The question is too broad. Clearly the natives of the Congo would have been better off without Belgian colonisation.

But... it has been said, by people in the Congo today who remember the 1950s, that this was the best period most of the people in terms of quality of life. e.g. relative peace compared with never ending conflict since the 1960s. The introduction of education and healthcare etc. This doesn't justify the horrors that preceded it, it just what it is.

MidlanderMan

The million+ Kikukyu tribesmen rounded up and put into concentration camps in Kenya as recently as the 1950s might disagree about the greatness of of colonial period in Africa. Some of them are even alive if you'd like to ask them yourself.

feargale

MidlanderMan wrote: »

The million+ Kikukyu tribesmen rounded up and put into concentration camps in Kenya as recently as the 1950s might disagree about the greatness of of colonial period in Africa. Some of them are even alive if you'd like to ask them yourself.

You were doing fine until you came to the piece in bold. Let's have light rather than heat please.

After all this is the history forum.

We've already had a poster.with "serious misgivings about my motivation." There are too many in boards.ie who find it very difficult to have an exchange of views and information without getting hot under the collar or prejudging. As John A. Murphy said the function of a historian is to investigate and state the facts, no more, no less.

Das Reich

Actually Angolans loves the Portuguese, they even feel Portuguese and support they team and watch their tvs. Don't know about the Algerians but I know many of them emigrated to France after they expelled the French minority (I can consider that a racism or xenophobia). Italy was the best colonialist country, they did too much for the small amount of colonial period. I went to Egypt and all the infrastructure there was made when during English rule. I think France maybe was the worst by seeing Mali, Chad, Mauritania etc... The French ex-colonies are the worst in Africa. Dutch colonialism was also not bad, in South Africa they did populated the empty area and not only explored. And to finish the topic, Salazar was right and had a great vision of the future os decolonization of Africa, that man had an IQ was superior to his fascist homologues, he knew exaclty what would happen to Africa without Europeans.

riffmongous

donaghs wrote: »

The question is too broad. Clearly the natives of the Congo would have been better off without Belgian colonisation.

But... it has been said, by people in the Congo today who remember the 1950s, that this was the best period most of the people in terms of quality of life. e.g. relative peace compared with never ending conflict since the 1960s. The introduction of education and healthcare etc. This doesn't justify the horrors that preceded it, it just what it is.

How much of that conflict was as a direct result of colonialism though? Ethnic and regional conflicts due to the lumping of many different groups into one country, continued Belgian interference, a lack of educated black citizens to administer the country?

donaghs

riffmongous wrote: »

How much of that conflict was as a direct result of colonialism though? Ethnic and regional conflicts due to the lumping of many different groups into one country, continued Belgian interference, a lack of educated black citizens to administer the country?

All true, but they don’t address the OP question.

Yellow_Fern

riffmongous wrote: »

How much of that conflict was as a direct result of colonialism though? Ethnic and regional conflicts due to the lumping of many different groups into one country, continued Belgian interference, a lack of educated black citizens to administer the country?

There was no natural states to draw lines around to make better countries in the Congo Basin. Linguistically the situation is so difficult that their lingua franca is French and Swahili a language from the Indian Ocean Coast. The story of Congo is very complex and Belgians set up a system that encouraged enormous cruelty in the search for rubber but it is too much of a reach to say the current unrest in Congo is caused by Belgium. Congo was also de stabilised earlier to the Belgium rubber trade by Arab and European slave trades which are linked with enormous population collapses while the Portuguese introduction of maize and cassava caused significant population expansions.

Yellow_Fern

MidlanderMan wrote: »

The million+ Kikukyu tribesmen rounded up and put into concentration camps in Kenya as recently as the 1950s might disagree about the greatness of of colonial period in Africa. Some of them are even alive if you'd like to ask them yourself.

Do you always multiply numbers by ten or only for your political agenda?

160,000 were detained

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12997138

MidlanderMan

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Do you always multiply numbers by ten or only for your political agenda?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12997138

160+k nationalist fighters were officially detained, on top of that approximately 1 million Kikuyu people were rounded up and "resettled" in "villages" which were controlled by British troops. The "villages" were likened to concentration camps or gulags.

feargale

Das Reich wrote: »

Actually Angolans loves the Portuguese, they even feel Portuguese and support they team and watch their tvs. Don't know about the Algerians but I know many of them emigrated to France after they expelled the French minority (I can consider that a racism or xenophobia). Italy was the best colonialist country, they did too much for the small amount of colonial period. I went to Egypt and all the infrastructure there was made when during English rule. I think France maybe was the worst by seeing Mali, Chad, Mauritania etc... The French ex-colonies are the worst in Africa. Dutch colonialism was also not bad, in South Africa they did populated the empty area and not only explored. And to finish the topic, Salazar was right and had a great vision of the future os decolonization of Africa, that man had an IQ was superior to his fascist homologues, he knew exaclty what would happen to Africa without Europeans.

You forgot to mention the German colonisers and how much they were loved in Namibia, especially by the Herrero people. The Italian army was so good in Libya that, being very modest, to this day public discussion of their role there is forbidden in Italy. Yes the Dutch populated the empty areas of South Africa, after they had emptied them. They were very nice in Indonesia too, as my Indonesian neigbour assured me.

P.S. Which of the Reichs is your username a homage to, or can we guess?

feargale

yoke wrote: »

What more is there to say?

“Were Africa’s best years in the colonial era?” - Yes, if you were a Belgian tyrant making money off rubber plantations.

If you already knew about the likes of Leopold and their actions, then I have serious misgivings about your motivation for asking this question.

Just because the Arabs did something before the Europeans doesn’t make it right. Sure it’s alright to rob the granny who lives down the street, some gang did it last week already so it’s acceptable now.

I ask a question, and you question my motivation. So much for the devotion to free expression and open discussion by pseudo-liberals. Yours is the questionable motivation.

feargale

Peregrinus wrote: »

Very hard to discuss, comment or criticise when no reason is offered in support of this conclusion, and nothing is said about what is meant by "best years".

If what you have relayed is the full amount of what was posted in the other site, then my comment is: this is not worth my time.

If what you have relayed is less than the full amount of what was posted in the other site, then my comment is: why are you censoring this?

If all of that is correct, what on earth were you doing here?

Yellow_Fern

feargale wrote: »

You forgot to mention the German colonisers and how much they were loved in Namibia, especially by the Herrero people. The Italian army was so good in Libya that, being very modest, to this day public discussion of their role there is forbidden in Italy. Yes the Dutch populated the empty areas of South Africa, after they had emptied them. They were very nice in Indonesia too, as my Indonesian neigbour assured me.

P.S. Which of the Reichs is your username a homage to, or can we guess?

The terrible events that happened in the Congo and in Namibia are famous because it is the exception. Namibia is an enormous place and the events you refer to to took place over only four years. For me its a very small snap of a very long history. By and large I wouldnt focus on praising European interventions but I do think European policies had limited impact. What had much bigger impact was the enhanced globalisation of Africa that Europeans brought.

BalcombeSt4

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Africa is an enormous place, yes there were terrible atrocities. But is a varied picture and some of the colonialist did amazing work. You can't compare Cromwell to what happened in Africa. Africa is a region where there was vastly less European influence. For example the vast majority of African arable land was never farmed by Europeans. Anyone who equates the British army of the 1950s to ISIS is a moron.

You're right, the right the British Army in the 1950's nearly started a nuclear war over Suez, and killed a lot more than ISIS.

Anyone who defends clear-cut war crimes is a moron.

BalcombeSt4

Das Reich wrote: »

Actually Angolans loves the Portuguese, they even feel Portuguese and support they team and watch their tvs. Don't know about the Algerians but I know many of them emigrated to France after they expelled the French minority (I can consider that a racism or xenophobia). Italy was the best colonialist country, they did too much for the small amount of colonial period. I went to Egypt and all the infrastructure there was made when during English rule. I think France maybe was the worst by seeing Mali, Chad, Mauritania etc... The French ex-colonies are the worst in Africa. Dutch colonialism was also not bad, in South Africa they did populated the empty area and not only explored. And to finish the topic, Salazar was right and had a great vision of the future os decolonization of Africa, that man had an IQ was superior to his fascist homologues, he knew exaclty what would happen to Africa without Europeans.

So why did the Angolians fight a war of liberation against Portugal in which 50,000+ people died.
I'll assume the part about Italy was a joke in poor taste.
I didn't know the English built the Pyramids, did they build Machu Picchu & the city of Atlantis as well?
Some minorities learn to love their oppresser. In Ireland Carson formed 100,000 man militia tofight against Irish freedom.

Yellow_Fern

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

You're right, the right the British Army in the 1950's nearly started a nuclear war over Suez, and killed a lot more than ISIS.

Anyone who defends clear-cut war crimes is a moron.

When people raise ISIS in discussions its rarely as a means to offer an example of record numbers of human killings. It is normally to refer to ISIS's extreme evil or the ideological nature of its evil so your comment is churlish.

Peregrinus

feargale wrote: »

If all of that is correct, what on earth were you doing here?

Pointing out the weaknesses in the position stated in your OP. If you were looking for discussion in which people only commented on your OP in order to agree with it, I think you've come to the wrong discussion forum.

mikemac2

Das Reich wrote: »

Italy was the best colonialist country, they did too much for the small amount of colonial period.

You left out the part in the 1930´s they flew low level over Ethiopia and spread mustard gas. They used gas multiple times in that war

feargale

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pointing out the weaknesses in the position stated in your OP. If you were looking for discussion in which people only commented on your OP in order to agree with it, I think you've come to the wrong discussion forum.

Wrong. I invited, and received, comments pro and con. I think we're doing fine here, thank you.

If you think the thread is in need of improvement you like everybody else are free to post a constructive contribution on either side of the discussion.

Peregrinus

feargale wrote: »

Wrong. I invited, and received, comments pro and con. I think we're doing fine here, thank you.

If you think the thread is in need of improvement you like everybody else are free to post a constructive contribution on either side of the discussion.

So are you, which was kind of the point of my first post in the thread, to which you apparently took exception.

Historybluff

feargale wrote: »

I have read a comment in another site asserting that Africa's best years were in the colonial era. Please discuss, comment, criticise.

I don't think Africa's best years were in the colonial era. Fundamentally, colonialism is economically exploitative and/or racist. 'The white man's burden' and the 'civilizing mission' were largely, though maybe not entirely, excuses.

On virtually all metrics, Africa is a better place to live in today than it was when it was ruled by European Powers. Since independence, taking the continent as a whole:

• there are more democratic regimes
• most African countries have benefited from economic growth
• life expectancy has risen
• infant mortality has declined
• a higher proportion of children and young people receive a formal education
• poverty has fallen, while the middle class has expanded

Sources: African Development Bank Group, Tracking Africa's Progress in Figures (Tunis: African Development Bank Group, 2014) and Our World in Data, Africa in Data slideshow

BalcombeSt4

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

When people raise ISIS in discussions its rarely as a means to offer an example of record numbers of human killings. It is normally to refer to ISIS's extreme evil or the ideological nature of its evil so your comment is churlish.

But like beauty, evil is a subjective quality.

Me and you find beheading people horrible, shocking & disgusting. A minority find it thrilling & a thing of glory.

It is strange, people celebrate the French Revolution now, yet tens of thousands of people lost their heads, even the Royal couple, and people were cheering while the beheadings took place. Are the French "evil"?

ISIS share the same ideology that Saudi arabia (Wahhabism) have, yeah that country the U S gives billions of dollars in hi-tech weaponry to, the same weapons the Saudi's have used to create hell on earth for Yemen, hmmmmmm I wonder who gives ISIS their weapons?

MidlanderMan

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

You're right, the right the British Army in the 1950's nearly started a nuclear war over Suez, and killed a lot more than ISIS.

I don't remeber ISIS putting 1 million + Kenyan Tribes People in concentration camps either...

BalcombeSt4

MidlanderMan wrote: »

I don't remeber ISIS putting 1 million + Kenyan Tribes People in concentration camps either...

My point exactly. They never caused several famines in India either & 2 major ones in Ireand. Never split Palestine into a chess board were fighting continues to this day over it. Speaking of camps, the Boers were the first of camps of the modern war era.

This does not mean ISIS are good far from it, but they're the latest line of boogymen. First the "red" Indian, the sneaky "Japs", reds under the bed, Castro, plane hijackers who were "always" Palestinian, Taliban & Bin Laden even tho we armed them, ISIS, Mexican immigrants ..... And the West forgets t's own dirty past.

Wonder who'll be next.

Yellow_Fern

MidlanderMan wrote: »

I don't remeber ISIS putting 1 million + Kenyan Tribes People in concentration camps either...

Yeah ISIS don't use concentration camps. They just put people to the sword right away. Internment camps and concentration camps violate human rights but they are normally used on the basis that human life is worth of protection or that a state has to at least pretend that human life is worth protecting. Colonialism has a dark history but European colonialism was usually practised by states that shared many values we have today. The same can not be said of ISIS.

The Brits did not cause famines in India. Neither did they cause the Irish Great Hunger. Their policy made it worse but was not the cause.

Peregrinus

European colonialism: not quite as bad as ISIS.

It doesn't go very far towards supporting the thesis in the OP, does it?

Yellow_Fern

Peregrinus wrote: »

European colonialism: not quite as bad as ISIS.

It doesn't go very far towards supporting the thesis in the OP, does it?

A lot better than ISIS and this isnt a defence of colonialism and in some cases colonialism helped people eg. British ending of the Arab slave trade.

Yes I would agree that Africa's best days were not in the colonial period. Africa is a rapidly growing continent and there is enormous economic activity there. That been in said, you will always find exceptions, in the height of the AIDs crisis perhaps some African countries were slightly worse than under colonialism but that is debatable. Until recently Kenya's colonial train network was far better than post colonial. The Democratic Republic of Congos road network was better under colonialism but these are just small exceptions. Africa started far behind Europe due to vastly harder enviroment. Ireland adopted the plough in the Neolithic, much of tropical Africa was never able to and is transitioning from hand hoe to tractor. They have a long transition to do.

BalcombeSt4

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

A lot better than ISIS and this isnt a defence of colonialism and in some cases colonialism helped people eg. British ending of the Arab slave trade.

Yes I would agree that Africa's best days were not in the colonial period. Africa is a rapidly growing continent and there is enormous economic activity there. That been in said, you will always find exceptions, in the height of the AIDs crisis perhaps some African countries were slightly worse than under colonialism but that is debatable. Until recently Kenya's colonial train network was far better than post colonial. The Democratic Republic of Congos road network was better under colonialism but these are just small exceptions. Africa started far behind Europe due to vastly harder enviroment. Ireland adopted the plough in the Neolithic, much of tropical Africa was never able to and is transitioning from hand hoe to tractor. They have a long transition to do.

We knew the slow method of torture [at the Mau Mau Investigation Center] was worse than anything we could do. Special Branch there had a way of slowly electrocuting a Kuke—they'd rough up one for days. Once I went personally to drop off one gang member who needed special treatment. I stayed for a few hours to help the boys out, softening him up. Things got a little out of hand. By the time I cut his balls off, he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him.

Castration by British troops and denying access to medical aid to the detainees were also widespread and common. Among the detainees who suffered severe mistreatment was, the grandfather of Barack Obama, the former President of the United States. According to his widow, British soldiers forced pins into his fingernails and buttocks and squeezed his testicles between metal rods and two others were castrated.

Maybe a small bit better?
But, by the time you're getting that badly tortured would you really be thinking, "so glad this this torture is being done to me for imperial reasons & not a religous fundamental ideology." ?

Yellow_Fern

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Maybe a small bit better?
But, by the time you're getting that badly tortured would you really be thinking, "so glad this this torture is being done to me for imperial reasons & not a religous fundamental ideology." ?

One crime during one particularly bad outbreak in one colony doesn't define the history of a continent.

MidlanderMan

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

One crime during one particularly bad outbreak in one colony doesn't define the history of a continent.

You think the 1950's was "one particularly bad outbreak" when compared to the rest of the time European powers colonised Africa?

Are you insane?

Lyan

yoke wrote: »

link - https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmkwtfcALkE/V-IYRt-8v2I/AAAAAAAALHY/UqHE4jHUmaENaeI2L7WFfF8ThESYsdFNQCLcB/s1600/cong_hands_1904.jpg
A father stares at the severed hand and foot of his five-year-old daughter as punishment for failing to make the daily rubber quota, in Belgian Congo, 1904.

It was other native African guards hired by the Belgians that did that, not white Belgians. Is there evidence of the Belgians giving a mandate for them to do this?

MidlanderMan

Lyan wrote: »

It was other native African guards hired by the Belgians that did that, not white Belgians. Is there evidence of the Belgians giving a mandate for them to do this?

There is a mountian of evidence that King Leopold ordered his forces in the Belgian Congo to do the things they did. Cutting off hands and genitles and murdering over approximately 15,000,000 people in a period of 23 years up to 1908.

The population of the area was reduced by +/- 25% due to his rule.

Lyan

MidlanderMan wrote: »

There is a mountian of evidence that King Leopold ordered his forces in the Belgian Congo to do the things they did. Cutting off hands and genitles and murdering over approximately 15,000,000 people in a period of 23 years up to 1908.

The population of the area was reduced by +/- 25% due to his rule.

Can you provide a source please?

feargale

yoke wrote: »

If you already knew about the likes of Leopold and their actions, then I have serious misgivings about your motivation for asking this question.

If you have "serious misgivings" say what your problem is. Don't just do the Pontius Pilate "just saying" trick, of smearing while dodging responsibity for your words.