Africa - Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?

[Centurion1]

yes and only time will tell if it can all be healed.

[Meneldil]

In regards to inventions, if you take in to account the climate and environment mixed in with the isolation of civilisations, you would realise that their inability to advance at the same technological pace as Eurasia is because they were lacking in the same materials that civilisations elsewhere had which enabled them to produce the weaponry they did (as an example) while having access to more luxurious materials which mean little militarily or architecturally. The way I see it, if you don't have the material to make something, and can't procure said material from another source then how can you be blamed for not making it?

I'm quite confident that if at some point we swapped the areas inhabited with white people with blacks (and vice versa) we would end up with an advanced black civilisation and a 'primitive' white one.

The climate excuse was used by Montesquieu centuries ago and kind of fell flat. Furthermore, large parts of Africa had a better climate than large parts of Europe or Asia. I think you'll have to find something else to explain why Africa had barely evolved past the stone age when the Europeans showed up.

[Noncommunist]

The climate excuse was used by Montesquieu centuries ago and kind of fell flat. Furthermore, large parts of Africa had a better climate than large parts of Europe or Asia. I think you'll have to find something else to explain why Africa had barely evolved past the stone age when the Europeans showed up.

Sub-Saharan Africa is also at a latitude where they cannot as easily trade with other civilizations. Unlike Eurasia where much of it is spread at about the same latitude which enables greater trade, sub-Saharan Africa is spread across a lot of latitudes. When at the same latitude, changes in climate are less which enables agriculture to spread more easily. And if certain plants and animals can spread, then ideas spread more easily which means that civilizations there can spread more easily.

[Centurion1]

what about mesoamerican civilizations they were advanced to an extent.

[OvidiusNasso]

The climate excuse was used by Montesquieu centuries ago and kind of fell flat. Furthermore, large parts of Africa had a better climate than large parts of Europe or Asia. I think you'll have to find something else to explain why Africa had barely evolved past the stone age when the Europeans showed up.

They were primitive true, but how would 16th century Europe look compared to Rome if you compared the two without any military related things allowed?

Now same question just replace Romans with meso Americans.

[sulla1982ad]

You know by the the time scale of history, theres certain parts of europe that haven't been advanced for that long. Western europe used to be considered a backwater a few thousand years ago. I get the feeling some people are trying to imply that Africans are less genetically enchanced then white people. This idea fits in nicely with the white man's burden narrative.

Must of been a massive burden to pillage and brutalise an entire continent. People are a product of there enivroment. When a society is brutalised, it has long term efforts on it, that can takes years to recover from. Europe plundered, invaded, murdered, pillaged, deliberately neglected the inhabitants of there empires. Also don't kid yourself to think our involvement in Africa is over. As long as theres resources in Africa, there will be be neo colonailism.

[White_eyes:D]

Must of been a massive burden to pillage and brutalise an entire continent. People are a product of there enivroment. When a society is brutalised, it has long term efforts on it, that can takes years to recover from. Europe plundered, invaded, murdered, pillaged, deliberately neglected the inhabitants of there empires.

I need to disagree with you here. The biggest thing that Europe did wrong in Africa was give them guns. Tribes were killing and raiding each other LONG before the Europeans arrived. They didn't just "learn" to be brutal from the Europeans during the colonization, they already were pretty brutal. (Shaka Zulu anyone?)

The Boers were even attacked for no reason by the Zulu. These native people were not as friendly as my native people in North America here. The worst thing they did was give them weapons, after that raids become bloodbaths and it was only a matter of time till wars broke out.

Doesn't matter how the borders were arranged, if they were next to each other it still would have led nations to war, since they still had that tribal warfare mindset.

[sulla1982ad]

I need to disagree with you here. The biggest thing that Europe did wrong in Africa was give them guns. Tribes were killing and raiding each other LONG before the Europeans arrived. They didn't just "learn" to be brutal from the Europeans during the colonization, they already were pretty brutal. (Shaka Zulu anyone?)

The Boers were even attacked for no reason by the Zulu. These native people were not as friendly as my native people in North America here. The worst thing they did was give them weapons, after that raids become bloodbaths and it was only a matter of time till wars broke out.

Doesn't matter how the borders were arranged, if they were next to each other it still would have led nations to war, since they still had that tribal warfare mindset.

You countering clams I never made. People in Africa being humans, it is of course inevitable that warfare would break out on the continent.

What I'm saying is that colonialism did long term damage to Africa, that will take a long time for it to recover from. Nations that have been abused, tend to be more brutal. Look what happend to Germany after the first world war.

[White_eyes:D]

That was mostly because of the "Great Depression". When people get desperate and staving, they are more willing to do bad things. Hitler didn't even get 4% of the vote in 1924 and it went down in 1929 to 2.4%. In 1930 it won 18.3% of the vote and in 1932 it won 36.8%, the longer the economy was bad, the more votes Hitler won.

This was no different in Africa before or after the Europeans left. It is always a fight for survival there, The Europeans had a hard time too till the 19th Century. Did the Europeans make mistakes? Of course they did, they didn't try and get rid of that tribal mindset. I am not disagreeing that they did damage with their colonization policy but claiming they learned from them due to the abuse?

[sulla1982ad]

The 1 million people in Germany who starved to death, due the blockade. The needless humilation Germany suffered. Those must of had an effect on the German nation. I think it helped contributed to the creating the environment that bred fascism.

Also you seem to be missing the point entirely about what was done to Africa. Country that are colonised tend to get economically retarded they do not get developed. I think to say Africa was no diffrent after the Europeans left is a clear case of denial. Also what effect to do think the murder of millions of people would have on a nation?

Why use the term mistake? What has mistakes got to do with anything? Europe went over to Africa to exploit it, they succeed? Using the term mistake is attempting to down play what happend to Africa. Europe didn't go over there with noble intentions, and bungled up. They went over there to make a profit, and make most Africans into a inpoverish underclass.

[White_eyes:D]

Africa had a HUGE economy before the Europeans colonized? State your source on this please. Millions were dying anyway, people just die faster when you have guns and diseases your not immune to. The Mistake was that they went there at all, should have just let them kill each other and picked up the pieces by trading.

Millions were being murdered in North America as well 100 million to 1.8 million native people, do we blame the evil Europeans for it?

No, we get over it and try to start fresh, it sucks but what are you going to do? Nothing like the Africans I hope. This beings me back to the point of desperate times, leads to people doing bad things, because I don't see anyone I know wanting to blame the Europeans for anything here.

[sulla1982ad]

Again you seem to be countering arguement I never made.

The point is a lot of people seem to be under the inpression that we helped Africa. Also the west is still involved with Africa behind the scenes.

Also I know Millions where murdered in America. (Done by white Europeans) What is your point? We get over it? I think that is a silly thing to say. Loads of people are still in denial over what happend, or try to justify it. What a lot of people say is at the level of holocaust denial.

Anyway intresting thread. I don't see what more I could add though.

[Samurai Waki]

I disagree with your take on Native American's Sulla... We all know what happened, it was a terrible shame, but we're not going to be made to feel guilty about it since none of us were there to do anything about it, and if we were there I doubt things would've changed the situation much...

Anyways, Africa is slowly making progress; European Colonialism may have spurred on a lot of the disastrous policies of the past, but as mentioned before, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa most people were still living in an Iron Age, and with that an Iron Age mentality. The idea of nation had zero meaning, it's always been the "clan first" It has very little to do with the way Africa partitioned, it wasn't like they were helping draw out the maps... this was a purely European affair. I don't think they would have been any better off if they had drawn the borders differently; however now that Education standards and easy communication are slowly rising in countries such as Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria, and so on-- the idea of Nation has a bit more meaning for all parties involved.

[sulla1982ad]

Not trying to make people feel guilty. I don't feel guilty about it. I didn't personally do it. What I don't like is people trying to down play what happend. We can't change the past, but that doesn't mean we should white wash it. Also what Europe did must of have had a massive effect on Africa. BTW undeveloped countrys can develop, if there not colonized, look at the case of Japan.

Also I don't see how Africa level of technology is relevant to European crimes? Expect the fact it made it a more vulnerable victim.

[Thunder Mist]

I disagree with your take on Native American's Sulla... We all know what happened, it was a terrible shame, but we're not going to be made to feel guilty about it since none of us were there to do anything about it, and if we were there I doubt things would've changed the situation much...

Just remember that the Native Americans are still alive and living, with a rapid population expansion that isn't slowing down. To an extent, they are still persecuted today (yes, even in the U.S.A. and Canada).

Nothing excuses colonization. Today, such actions are considered crimes against humanity.

[Samurai Waki]

Yes-- I'm aware having lived within a half hours distance of the Flathead reservation for twenty years. I don't see the same persecution however, the programs to try to bring natives up to a somewhat more first world conditions in the sixties was an utter flop, and I think that it made some non-natives who were aware of the resulting failures wrongly pointed the fingers at the tribal agencies rather than the federal government's piss poor handling of their tax dollars. Overall people seem to be pretty friendly both on and off the reservations in Montana towards whites and non-whites-- actually there's not a whole lot of purely native natives around anymore-- despite the growths in population the continuance of the culture may be in jeopardy simply because many of the reservations are holes and the Natives are tired of living at the whims of how many federal dollars the res can rake in each year.

[Warluster]

A few thing's I'd like to add to this debate...

I don't believe Africa was a 'innocent' continent before European intervention, and I certainly don't believe that it was a 'dumb' continent either, in that it was at the very basics of human development. The economic system in place was obviously tribal, but it had been interfered with for centuries - not even including North Africa or the Southern coastline. From many of the lone explorers who moved through Central Africa in the 19th century provided many accounts of a thriving, booming trade system. The massive industry of slavery wasn't just adopted by Europe, with some Muslim rulers spurning millions from coast to coast for several centuries (The slave lords of Central Africa were also native, an example being Buganda which, going off of accounts from Stanley, was highly developed and had a class system just as defined as Europe.)

Trying to prove that Africa had a more detailed economic system is virtually impossible. The ratio of European/Middle Eastern accounts to African accounts of their history and tribes (contempoary!) would be, at an estimate, some along 50:1.

And, perhaps off topic slightly... with the Native American reservations in the United States. 'Reserving' land in that way has always been a alien idea to me, as here in Aus/New Zealand the integration of Aborginial/Maori culture into the European culture has proven to be as peaceful/succesful. Though statistics for the 'original' ethinicities has always been slightly lower (Apparently the average Aboriginal man will live to 40, while any other person will live in to their 80's) and perhaps the resistance/dissidents has never been a issue over here with native land rights, I believe that the merging of the two cultures will eventually end out for the best - and the formation of 'preservation' committees proving to be the way to 'reserve' ancient lands.

[sulla1982ad]

Warluster you should read some John Pilger on the Aborginial peoples treatment in Australia. I don't see how you can clam its succesful.

Also about Africa, there seems to be a lot of people trying to deflect the topic with irreverent waffle. It doesn't matter what Africa's level of development was, it's no excuse for invading it, and slaughtering millions. Also Its clear to me that Africas development was damaged by the european invaders. Too be honest, what some of the people say on here is shocking to me. It seems denial for your own countrys, or cultures crimes seems to be a universal feature of human nature sadly. I will try to make this the last world of this subject. Most people here don't want to process new infomation in a rational way.

[al Roumi]

Too be honest, what some of the people say on here is shocking to me. It seems denial for your own countrys, or cultures crimes seems to be a universal feature of human nature sadly. I will try to make this the last world of this subject. Most people here don't want to process new infomation in a rational way.

Welcome to the Org.

[Warluster]

I think that covers most Internet forums/comments/chats pretty thoroughly, as well.

[Thunder Mist]

I think that covers most Internet forums/comments/chats pretty thoroughly, as well.

Sadly, it would seem to be a reflection of people in general, internet forum or not.

[White_eyes:D]

Overall, Africa was made slightly worse by colonization. I know my previous posts sound like I thought they were made better, but I think a couple of critical mistakes were made.

1.They never tried to get rid of that tribal warfare mindset. They needed some kind of education system that would have taught them some sort of national unity and tolerance.

The Europeans were more interested in profit however, and it showed when they failed to provide this, only leaving when it become unprofitable to keep the colony's.

2.Guns, simple raids could now mean bloodbaths and from there, endless revenge killing.

A little offtopic: The whole North America Natives growing thing, also has our murder/suicide rate at double anyone elses as well.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The 1 million people in Germany who starved to death, due the blockade. The needless humilation Germany suffered. Those must of had an effect on the German nation. I think it helped contributed to the creating the environment that bred fascism.

Myth myth myth

We had an interesting thread running about this. Germany was not humiliated at all. It received a very favourable deal. Nor did a million people die because of the blockade, the total number of German civilian casualties for the entire war is some 750 thousand. The blockade lore is another variant of the stab in the back legend: 'Germany would never have signed this humiliating treaty but the million dying children because of the blockade gave it no choice'.

[Noncommunist]

Myth myth myth

We had an interesting thread running about this. Germany was not humiliated at all. It received a very favourable deal. Nor did a million people die because of the blockade, the total number of German civilian casualties for the entire war is some 750 thousand. The blockade lore is another variant of the stab in the back legend: 'Germany would never have signed this humiliating treaty but the million dying children because of the blockade gave it no choice'.

For the scale of the numbers, 750,000 is plenty close enough to a million people.

[Louis VI the Fat]

For the scale of the numbers, 750,000 is plenty close enough to a million people.

There is a big difference between '1 million people in Germany who starved to death, due the blockade', and '750,000, the entire amount of German civilian casualties for the entirity of the war owing to all causes'.


More interesting to me is the status of the blockade in Versailles lore as an outrageous war crime, a Holocaust, a humiliation etc. Sometimes extended to 'the4 blockade after the armistice forced Germany to accept a humiliating treaty'. All of which I hold directly responsible for leading to WWII. The difference is that some argue that an outrageous humiliation of Germany after WWI led ultimately to WWII, whereas I (and I daresay most experts) believe that 'the perception of' outrageous humiliation outrageous humiliation of Germany after WWI led ultimately to WWII.

Why, half of what dear Fragony would deem 'gutmenschen' still believe that a 'million Iraqi's have died owing to the blockade after 1991'. There's a tremedous attraction the thought of a million starving children owing to some moslty unseen enemy doing something perfidious outside of your shores.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

No,Africa was destroyed by whites.

[Vladimir]

No,Africa was destroyed by whites.

It's a little known fact that Africa was completely destroyed by whites. That's why most American schoolchildren can't find it on a map, because it doesn't exist any more. We're ahead of the rest of the world on this.

[sulla1982ad]

There is a big difference between '1 million people in Germany who starved to death, due the blockade', and '750,000, the entire amount of German civilian casualties for the entirity of the war owing to all causes'.


More interesting to me is the status of the blockade in Versailles lore as an outrageous war crime, a Holocaust, a humiliation etc. Sometimes extended to 'the4 blockade after the armistice forced Germany to accept a humiliating treaty'. All of which I hold directly responsible for leading to WWII. The difference is that some argue that an outrageous humiliation of Germany after WWI led ultimately to WWII, whereas I (and I daresay most experts) believe that 'the perception of' outrageous humiliation outrageous humiliation of Germany after WWI led ultimately to WWII.

Why, half of what dear Fragony would deem 'gutmenschen' still believe that a 'million Iraqi's have died owing to the blockade after 1991'. There's a tremedous attraction the thought of a million starving children owing to some moslty unseen enemy doing something perfidious outside of your shores.

The blockade in Iraq was a evil thing to do to a country. I hope you are not trying to down play it? Its iffy enough to try and down play the crimes of imperialism of ages past, but to do the same to recent crimes is quite shocking too me.