[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/-zmkwtfcAL...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]

Originally Posted by feargale

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]

Originally Posted by feargale

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]

Originally Posted by yoke

link - https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmkwtfcAL...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]

Originally Posted by Jim2007

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]

Originally Posted by feargale

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]

Originally Posted by yoke

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]

Originally Posted by feargale

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]

Originally Posted by feargale

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]

Originally Posted by pedroeibar1

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]

Originally Posted by feargale

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.

Originally Posted by yoke

link - https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmkwtfcAL...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]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.