Africa: Doomed or debilitated?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Perhaps a debate about Africa will generate enough heat and opposing viewpoints to tempt old and new friends alike.

We have recently touched on the subject tangentially and there are clearly significantly divergent views that do not necessarily align with the usual political beliefs of individuals. I'm not even sure we can agree on the key causes of that sad continent's malaise.

To state my position, I cannot countenance the previously advocated variants of imperialism as I fundamentally believe that peoples cannot appreciate democracy and freedom until these are earned - peacefully, or otherwise. Imposing such values (and there is a discussion to be had, pertinent herein, that perhaps these are values exclusive the the western tradition and therefore not transferable without cultural imperialism) plants them into weak and shallow soil.

Yet whilst the old imperial paternalism has largely been removed from Africa, haven't we just replaced it with economic imperialism? African produce is heavily protected against, as it is mainly agricultural. African resources are largely stripped out by non-domiciled multinationals, which facilitate the process by feeding the seemingly insatiable appetite of Africans at all levels for corruption. Or, corruption by our western standards - for many, this is the way business is done and perhaps we would be wrong to think otherwise.

Having been a battleground for 19th century powers, Africa Independent rapidly became a battle ground for the Cold War. Some of the worst excesses of the "Revolution" and its proponents saw light in this benighted land, as well some of the least dignified projects of the Free World. We still happily sell vast amounts of arms into the continent whilst simultaneously throwing aid at the poverty occasioned from the fighting thus enabled. Sometimes, in a happy circle, the aid money comes back as payments for the arms shipments.

My solution then, would be to exclude Africa entirely from the world economy until stable, secular democracies have taken root. (I define by the western measure as that is my position). That means no trade in or out, and no aid. The continent is big enough and diverse enough to be able to supply all its own needs, within itself, if the countries therein stabilise themselves enough to maintain trade links.

Yes, the ensuing famines, wars and disasters will be devastating, but surely short-lived. Populations kept barely alive by aid and suppressed by arms shipments will surely overthrow the tyrants now deprived of their tanks and Swiss bank accounts. The agony will have an end, rather than the endless cycle of deprivation now seen.

A continent of squabbling, prejudiced tribes managed after a thousand years, to become the Europe we know today. In the main, we had little external colonisation or interference. I submit that the African character - even more diverse - must be forged in a similar fire, by Africans themselves, through the appeal and adoption of their own extraordinary cultural heritage, so that they may cast a destiny as an equal partner in the modern world. It cannot be done by us. At present, like a despairing parent facilitating the drug abuse of their stubborn and unwilling child, we are just making the continent's problems worse - notwithstanding our happily profiting from its squalor and thus having quite an incentive for the basket case to keep injecting. We profit from the endless dying, and can console ourselves that we are good people too.

I am however, keen to be proven wrong in my view. :bow:

[Furunculus]

Why is africa a mess (coming from one who lived there for six years)?
1) a tribal culture
2) a culture that condemns women to the periphery of society
3) as a result of #2 a culture that allows men to treat sex as a harmless past-time inspite of HIV/Aids
4) the western world erecting trade barriers against african goods
5) as a result of #4 the remaining opportunity in africa being economic imperialism
6) the USSR choosing to export the 'glorious' revolution to africa, causing it to become a cold-war battleground
7) the divisive borders deliberately drawn by colonial powers to divide and conquer
8) a persistant poverty caused by dependence on western aid

What can be done about it?
1) evolve past tribal limitations, it is not the end-point of african cultural development
2) integrate women into society as more than just sexual playthings and producers of heirs
3) quite blaming current uselessness on colonialism that ended at least two generations ago
4) use the administrative methods and standards of governance that were imparted by colonial masters
5) the western world should remove trade barriers
6) stop the majority of aid programs

[Hooahguy]

to bring back old members, all we need to do is bring up israel again.

on the topic, i think Africa is debilitated, for many of the reasons that Furunculus mentioned.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I have never been able to answer the question 'why is Africa poor', or read a satisfactory explanation. I bump into two obstacles: explanations that are too large seldom do justice to the vastness and variety of the Continent. And seem more often than not rather unconvincing, even unscientific.
And secondly, explanations that focus on a specific cause, or country / region, usually fail to take into consideration the plethora of failures of the continent. Surely, there can not be 17834 different causes, each one a specific cause for yet another failure?

The first, the big macro explanations, fail to distinguish between the 'success' states (Botswana, South Africa, Ghana, Senegal) versus economic failures (Tanzania, Niger, Zambia) versus political corruption failure (Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea), versus failed states (Somalia, Angola, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Sudan). Adding to the difficulty, is that states quickly change category in Africa. Twenty years ago, Zimbabwe was a succes story, and Ethiopia and Mozambique disasters. Currently it is the reverse.

Explanations at micro level in turn, that do take this varietion into consideration, are so limited in scope that I intuitively feel that they must be only touching on direct causes, with a disregard for larger, ulterior causes of African failure.



Failing to thus add much to this discussion, I shall leave with two remarks:

The West does not rule the world anymore. It is not all that relevant in Africa anymore. China is colonising Africa at a rate that boggles the mind. The continent is completely overrun. China might be in the process of doing, in fact, what some have proposed the West ought to have done: re-colonise Africa. I, for one, am not convinced it will have a detrimental effect on Africa. A 'Chinese model junior' is exported to Africa: peace, stability and economic development, but at the price of disregard for ecological, democratic or human rights.



A continent of squabbling, prejudiced tribes managed after a thousand years, to become the Europe we know today. In the main, we had little external colonisation or interference. This is Irish centrism. The South, the Southeast and the East of Europe have had extensive outside (non-European) interference and colonisation.
For example, and for a fun fact: right up until the 19th century, Africa held millions of European slaves. To end this enslavement of Europeans, and to end continual African slave raids on France, was the main reason for France to assume control of the Barbary Coast (Algeria) in 1830 in the first place.

[Strike For The South]

I think the first faulty assumption we make is that all countries in Africa fail and that they all fail for the same reason.

[Furunculus]

I think the first faulty assumption we make is that all countries in Africa fail and that they all fail for the same reason.

agreed. i came from one of the success stories of post-colonial africa.

[Strike For The South]

agreed. i came from one of the success stories of post-colonial africa.

Kenya?

[Furunculus]

Malawi.

it's gone downhill a bit since democracy arrived, but for the last half of the previous century it was remarkably stable, mostly uncorrupt, was exporting cash crops, and had a good education system.

quite an achievement considering its neighbours were rife with civil-war and busy exporting AIDS riven refugees into the north of the country.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Louis:

Excellent points, and you are correct to insert a note of caution into the "one answer fits all" tendency we have here in the backroom.

I'd start macro, then work micro.

For Macro, I would add climatological factors. Most of the cultures native to climates in the tropics have operated, historically, at a disadvantage when compared to the nation states developed in cooler climates. Discussion of this has varied, but it part it can be asserted that for much of their history, there was simply no NEED to go beyond tribalism/clan culture in order to prosper. While this does not apply to all of Africa, of course, a significant percentage of the African continent is affected by such socio-climatological themes.

The placement of (and latterly growth) of the Sahara, have functioned to limit socio-cultural interaction between North Africa and Equatorial Africa. The Saharan barrier limited technology transfer, trade, and the "interest" of most of the North African cultures as well as Eurasian influence. This separation was not as complete as that experienced by the Antipodes or Polynesia, but interaction was sharply limited.

[BigTex]

Only glanced across the posts after banquo's so if I'm repeating someone sorry.

I've been a firm believer that the rest of the world is the cuase of most of the problems in Africa now. We pump in aid in forms of imported food, devalueing domestically produced agriculture by giving away free western foodstuffs. Destroying their already impoverished agriculture. After Europe abandoned them in decolonialization they made sure that European company's still maintianed control over African resources, debeer's anyone? During the cold war we sold them arms, and supported the cruelest of leaders if they supported our side, both the communist and nato blocks. Now it's shaping up to be another battle ground for the USA and China, and probably India too.... During colonialization they where forced to have sometimes dangerous vaccines. Creating some more of the evils that plague Africa now, I doubt it was an accidentle cut while hunting, more like chimp pancreas's. We clear cut their forests to set up huge cities near swamps then ban DDT, leting malaria take over, and allowing the virus to evolve further in those massive cities..

I'd say the world is the problem, not Africa. They were fine, they would be fine, if we left them to their own. But we sit here, listening to U2 contemplating how we can help save them from inevitably our help. It wont happen though, we'll continue to try to save africa, to strip from their own lands their resources, to use it as a proxy for our own wars. Maybe when one inspiration African is born, and can unite a large portion of that land, then maybe it cna save itself from us. But I doubt we'd let that happen.

[rory_20_uk]

How is it that every other area of the globe, from Micronesia to the USA has managed to get some semblance of a functioning system whereas Africa hasn't? Indeed the leaders seem more interested in keeping the status quo than improving: Mugabe would have been sent packing if S. Africa had really wanted him to.

In the last 100 years of Europe we've slaughtered millions, broken Empires into small pieces, built new ones, thrown that down and even the states that were made have split into parts that in the main work. And the previous century was much the same with armies fighting back and forth.

In 1860 the life expectancy of men in Liverpool was 26 - massive, sprawling cities built on swampland - as was London. Things here were appalling. Death was frequent and often brutal. Malaria? Had that. Plague? Did that. Smallpox? Yup.

Europe isn't alone. Asia has also had frequent war, mass famines and waves of disease. Yet again they've persevered.

Although not all African states were equal, the trend is to destroy infrastructure, ruin any native functioning industry or agriculture and skim money off natural resources. If there's anything left over, the chance to destabilise a neighbour is not to be overlooked.

One problem is that travel is to easy. Educated, enthusiastic types leave, go anywhere else but stay in that dump of a continent. For example, Zimbabwe is full of people that couldn't be bothered to get out in the main - everyone else left. There was no revolution even though the country collapsed over a period of 20 years.

Until Africans take ownership of themselves nothing will change.

[Samurai Waki]

Its very strange how Botswana and Zimbabwe turned out to be so different. Zimbabwe possesses(ed) much larger economic opportunities, and yet has been stiflingly crippled by failed Politics. Whereas Botswana by every right should not have gotten as far as it did, as quickly as it did, and with very meager international support.

I guess the situation in Africa is similar to the situation in the Mideast, lines were drawn. It takes an awful long time for cultures to assimilate into one another for the common good, and even harder to forgive past transgressions. I think most countries in Africa have their hearts in the right places, but that doesn't do much good when the head refuses to accept the condition of the body that it inhabits.

[Furunculus]

1. I've been a firm believer that the rest of the world is the cuase of most of the problems in Africa now. We pump in aid in forms of imported food, devalueing domestically produced agriculture by giving away free western foodstuffs. Destroying their already impoverished agriculture.

2. After Europe abandoned them in decolonialization they made sure that European company's still maintianed control over African resources, debeer's anyone? During the cold war we sold them arms, and supported the cruelest of leaders if they supported our side, both the communist and nato blocks. Now it's shaping up to be another battle ground for the USA and China, and probably India too....

3. During colonialization they where forced to have sometimes dangerous vaccines. Creating some more of the evils that plague Africa now, I doubt it was an accidentle cut while hunting, more like chimp pancreas's.

4. We clear cut their forests to set up huge cities near swamps then ban DDT, leting malaria take over, and allowing the virus to evolve further in those massive cities..

5. I'd say the world is the problem, not Africa. They were fine, they would be fine, if we left them to their own. But we sit here, listening to U2 contemplating how we can help save them from inevitably our help. It wont happen though, we'll continue to try to save africa, to strip from their own lands their resources, to use it as a proxy for our own wars. Maybe when one inspiration African is born, and can unite a large portion of that land, then maybe it cna save itself from us. But I doubt we'd let that happen.

1. you are very wrong, africa is the cause of the majority of its problems, we just make it worse by refusing them access to our markets and poisoning the administration with grant corruption.

2. When you say the west 'abandoned' africa, do you imply that:
a) we shouldn't have done, indeed we should be there still
b) we left too quickly
If the former then you exist within a very select minority that refuse to recognise that the time of colonisation had come to an end.
If the latter then you refuse to recognise that post WW2 most countries were too poverty stricken to maintain empires at a time of reduced global trade, especially when there were revolutionary ideologies gaining traction that encouraged the 'downtrodden' to throw off the shackles of western imperialism.

3. Are you seriously blaming western imperialism for Aids and ebola......... because that literally staggers the mind!

4. I am not aware the the Queens Royal Logging Company turned the central african rainforrest into cheap furniture, is that what you are saying?

5. Well, there were doing just fine if you consider that its ok for the Matabele to butcher the Mashona whenever they liked, or the Zulu's to butcher whoever they liked. In reality no nation or place exists in a vacuum, and the idea that we should have hermetically sealed africa and left them to it is ridiculous.

[Furunculus]

1. How is it that every other area of the globe, from Micronesia to the USA has managed to get some semblance of a functioning system whereas Africa hasn't? Indeed the leaders seem more interested in keeping the status quo than improving: Mugabe would have been sent packing if S. Africa had really wanted him to.

2. In the last 100 years of Europe we've slaughtered millions, broken Empires into small pieces, built new ones, thrown that down and even the states that were made have split into parts that in the main work. And the previous century was much the same with armies fighting back and forth.

3. In 1860 the life expectancy of men in Liverpool was 26 - massive, sprawling cities built on swampland - as was London. Things here were appalling. Death was frequent and often brutal. Malaria? Had that. Plague? Did that. Smallpox? Yup.

4. Although not all African states were equal, the trend is to destroy infrastructure, ruin any native functioning industry or agriculture and skim money off natural resources. If there's anything left over, the chance to destabilise a neighbour is not to be overlooked.

5. Until Africans take ownership of themselves nothing will change.

1. Good question, they certainly haven't achieved this blessed state.

2. Indeed, parts of europe have been shelled and bombed into rubble twice this century, whith tens of millions dieing, and yet europe has picked up the pieces and continued their journey through history as liberal and developed nations.

3. what is sad is that places like zimbabwe have gone backwards and the life expectancy gone down.

4. This is always a difficult question for me to answer, because i supported the removal of saddam as a brutal dictator who held his people back (who also threatened neighbouring countries which justified the intervention), and yet i recognise that Malawi was stable and happy precisely because it was ruled by a 'benevolent' dictator. does this mean i don't believe africa worthy of western democracy...........? i hope not, but the dichotomy troubles me because i don't want to believe it to be true*, and yet i cannot wish that Malawi had discovered people power likes its neigbours.

5. a most important point, africa needs to stop blaming others for its problems and sort itself out, which would be much easier if we didn't treat them like a retarded child who needs feeding and will never provide for them self, an act the continues to infantilise the continent.


* my father friend was deposited dead on his wifes doorstep in a tobacco sack, and she told that if she ever made a fuss her children would never receive an education. he made the mistake of publicly criticizing Banda's gov't.

[BigTex]

1. you are very wrong, africa is the cause of the majority of its problems, we just make it worse by refusing them access to our markets and poisoning the administration with grant corruption.

2. When you say the west 'abandoned' africa, do you imply that:
a) we shouldn't have done, indeed we should be there still
b) we left too quickly
If the former then you exist within a very select minority that refuse to recognise that the time of colonisation had come to an end.
If the latter then you refuse to recognise that post WW2 most countries were too poverty stricken to maintain empires at a time of reduced global trade, especially when there were revolutionary ideologies gaining traction that encouraged the 'downtrodden' to throw off the shackles of western imperialism.

3. Are you seriously blaming western imperialism for Aids and ebola......... because that literally staggers the mind!

4. I am not aware the the Queens Royal Logging Company turned the central african rainforrest into cheap furniture, is that what you are saying?

5. Well, there were doing just fine if you consider that its ok for the Matabele to butcher the Mashona whenever they liked, or the Zulu's to butcher whoever they liked. In reality no nation or place exists in a vacuum, and the idea that we should have hermetically sealed africa and left them to it is ridiculous.

By abandoning I mean leaving far to quickly. Using a poor economy as an excuse doesnt remove the blame, things could have been done alot better. Ebola no, aids, yes not the west though specifically europe. Taking a vaccine and using unsafe conditions to make them, changing from green monkey to chimp pancreas's without due research and then forced vaccinations, yes I do blame imperialism for that.


2. Indeed, parts of europe have been shelled and bombed into rubble twice this century, whith tens of millions dieing, and yet europe has picked up the pieces and continued their journey through history as liberal and developed nations.

After they were bombed to rubble though countries foricbly stabalized them and funded the rebuilding. Once WWII was over the Allies imposed strict martial law in germany and funded massive rebuilding projects. There where also hundreds of thousands of troops ensuring that it remained stable. Completely different then current Africa.


5. a most important point, africa needs to stop blaming others for its problems and sort itself out, which would be much easier if we didn't treat them like a retarded child who needs feeding and will never provide for them self, an act the continues to infantilise the continent.

I'll agree, stop the aid to Africa and alot of the problems will solve themselves.

[Xiahou]

What can be done about it?
1) evolve past tribal limitations, it is not the end-point of african cultural development
2) integrate women into society as more than just sexual playthings and producers of heirs
3) quite blaming current uselessness on colonialism that ended at least two generations ago
4) use the administrative methods and standards of governance that were imparted by colonial masters
5) the western world should remove trade barriers
6) stop the majority of aid programs
Of these, the only ones the rest of the world can do is 5&6- which we should do. Africa has to sort out the rest on its own.

[Devastatin Dave]

Kenya?

Well atleast one of Kenya's citizens is doing great right now and lives in a big White House!!!:laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

Well atleast one of Kenya's citizens is doing great right now and lives in a big White House!!!:laugh4:

I'm glad someone got it.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well atleast one of Kenya's citizens is doing great right now and lives in a big White House!!!:laugh4:

I didn't know Biden was from Kenya.

[Fragony]

If you want to help Africa don't do anything or do something drastic. Imho we should flood Africa with grain, a short burst, to create a grain economy where the money economy fails, people will always need grain the coin will recover in the same way that money developed in the first place, out of convenience. A step back yes but the step forward was a disaster. It would allow the national currency's to recover and give the heavily state funded euro-farmers something to do, nothing goes to waste. Why pour money into Africa, it doesn't work.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yeah I think at this point agricultural products need to be shipped in rather than grown there as Zimbabwes doing a bang up job. Rather than shipping raw ag products, though, why don't nations send in food thats already been processed I wonder.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't think Africa's problems started with the encroachment of Europeans.

Rather, Africa was colonised by Europe instead of the other way around precisely because Africa was underdeveloped in the first place. Which is not to say that Africa's forceful incorporation into a world system wasn't traumatic.


For something completely different: I consider Africa and Europe cultural, not geographical terms. What's more, they are identities vis-a-vis Islam. 'Europe', in the modern sense of the word, originated with the conquest of the southern Mediterranean by Islam in the seventh century. Which put an end to the ancient Mediterranean world. The sea around which civilizations sat as frogs around a pond. Two distinct civilizations now existed, north and south of the Mediterranean.

In Africa, the same happened. In a long arch, from the mouth of the Gambia to Zanzibar, Africa belonged to the culture of Islam, the Ummah. South and west of this then lay Africa proper. A distinction that the Western world has adopted. Although adjusted to suit the more racially orientated western thought: black Africa, or later, more euphemistically, Sub-Saharan Africa.

A difference is that the Africans did not and the Europeans did self-identify as Africans and Europeans respectively.

In this scheme religion is the enduring dividing factor. With the two intervals of race (1870-1945) and ideology or polical systems (1945-1989) only of passing interest. Indeed, at the edges of the religious spheres, where the religious tectonic plates meet, there is instability and strife. In the North, from Kosovo and Bosnia to Algeria and the Paris suburbs. In the South, from Darfur to Somalia. This border instability has been in place for 1300 years, although the plates have shifted back and forth.

/pumping blood into the debate by mentioning religion and Islam.*

*which would then further go to show that religion is what flares the passions of the 21st century. Twenty years ago, dropping the word 'Marxism' would've aroused passion, and 'religion' merely a yawn. ~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

For Macro, I would add climatological factors. Most of the cultures native to climates in the tropics have operated, historically, at a disadvantage when compared to the nation states developed in cooler climates. Discussion of this has varied, but it part it can be asserted that for much of their history, there was simply no NEED to go beyond tribalism/clan culture in order to prosper. While this does not apply to all of Africa, of course, a significant percentage of the African continent is affected by such socio-climatological themes.

The placement of (and latterly growth) of the Sahara, have functioned to limit socio-cultural interaction between North Africa and Equatorial Africa. The Saharan barrier limited technology transfer, trade, and the "interest" of most of the North African cultures as well as Eurasian influence. This separation was not as complete as that experienced by the Antipodes or Polynesia, but interaction was sharply limited.Very interesting. And all of which reminds me of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and steel. Which you might have read. And which at any rate I highly recommend for those interested in long-term macro-history. Link (http://www.bookrags.com/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) (Speaking of macro-history, if you like Diamond, I would recommend Braudel for older, similar work on Europe.)


Despite my unlimited pedantry, I wouldn't, of course, simply mention Diamond to show how well-read I am. Instead, it serves for an opportunity to argue that Diamond, and like explanation schemes, for all their worth, overlook that 800lbs gorilla in the room.
Societies and states of Black Africans outside of Africa share in all the ills of African states. Whereas European, Indian, Chinese and Arabic societies in Africa share in all the cultural characteristics of their mother countries. Haïti is Rwanda in the Americas. South Africa is Britain in Africa.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Very interesting. And all of which reminds me of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and steel. Which you might have read. And which at any rate I highly recommend for those interested in long-term macro-history. Link (http://www.bookrags.com/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) (Speaking of macro-history, if you like Diamond, I would recommend Braudel for older, similar work on Europe.)

Haven't yet read Diamond. Did look at some stuff by McNeil (germs/warfare/culture) as well as the more common stuff on Europeans butchering cattle etc. that crops up in medieval history stuff.


Despite my unlimited pedantry, I wouldn't, of course, simply mention Diamond to show how well-read I am. Instead, it serves for an opportunity to argue that Diamond, and like explanation schemes, for all their worth, overlook that 800lbs gorilla in the room.
Societies and states of Black Africans outside of Africa share in all the ills of African states. Whereas European, Indian, Chinese and Arabic societies in Africa share in all the cultural characteristics of their mother countries. Haïti is Rwanda in the Americas. South Africa is Britain in Africa.

To be sure. I was merely starting out with some Macro themes first -- stopping there would be incomplete and too limiting to have real value. I was hoping somebody would take up those themes and go on to the next couple of points. For example, could you expand on your cultural characteristics point? I think I know what you are suggesting, but others might need more.

[Meneldil]

Very interesting. And all of which reminds me of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and steel. Which you might have read. And which at any rate I highly recommend for those interested in long-term macro-history. Link (http://www.bookrags.com/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) (Speaking of macro-history, if you like Diamond, I would recommend Braudel for older, similar work on Europe.)


Despite my unlimited pedantry, I wouldn't, of course, simply mention Diamond to show how well-read I am. Instead, it serves for an opportunity to argue that Diamond, and like explanation schemes, for all their worth, overlook that 800lbs gorilla in the room.
Societies and states of Black Africans outside of Africa share in all the ills of African states. Whereas European, Indian, Chinese and Arabic societies in Africa share in all the cultural characteristics of their mother countries. Haïti is Rwanda in the Americas. South Africa is Britain in Africa.

From what I've heard and read, S. Africa is far from a developped country. Violence and poverty are real issues, just as AIDS, the situation of women and the still existing racism are.
Maybe SA is a 18th century Britain in Africa, but I wouldn't go farther than that. I'm not sure it is the best example of a success in Africa.

As for the Climatic theory, I disagree. European thinkers have been using this as way to explain the situation in South America, Africa and Asia since like, Montesquieu? It fails for two reasons: the one pointed out by Louis, and the fact that some quite successful civilization developped in the tropics and in warm areas.

As for the topic itself, I seriously have no idea. I'd say that Europe is actually partly responsible. The way Africa was handled by France or Belgium (can't talk much about the UK, I know they were pretty bad in India, but I have no idea about Africa) is ridiculous. Then when they had to leave, they drawn borders arbitrarily (they couldn't have done anything else anyway), creating more ethnic and religious conflicts.
Now, I also agree that Africa achieved to screw up everything by itself after the Europeans left. In the 60's, it appeared as the most resourceful continent, and everybody thought it would grow quickly, thanks to an active and young population and to the technologies left by the former colonial overlords. But it failed in every aspect.
Even so-called African successes wouldn't stand a comparison with most country in Eastern Asia.

Now, the fact that all educated people only think about living that hell hole of a continent obviously doesn't help. But can we really blame them for that? Who would be ready to spend his life here to possibly change something, against terrible odds?

[Furunculus]

Yeah I think at this point agricultural products need to be shipped in rather than grown there as Zimbabwes doing a bang up job. Rather than shipping raw ag products, though, why don't nations send in food thats already been processed I wonder.

because that destroys any ability to create a domestic industry which allows africans to grow food, sell food, run businesses, have a life, etc.

it infantilises the continent by preventing any chance of becoming a developed economy.

[Fragony]

Ya. Just got this in the mail, "Dead Aid" by this beauty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBH47mByATc

Going to be a good read.

[Furunculus]

can't talk much about the UK, I know they were pretty bad in India,

would you care to elaborate on that?

[Fragony]

would you care to elaborate on that?

lol?

But I really wouldn't take that from a frenchie, probably the most brutal military the world has ever seen (if you can forgive the germans for a slipup here and there).

[Meneldil]

would you care to elaborate on that?

I already elaborated on that a while ago, and I think you were the person asking. I would care to do it again, if I were at home with the required article.
I don't remember the details, except for the fact that it was written by a british historian, published in The Gardian (I can hear the 'leftist propaganda' claim), and basically explained how the british colonial autorities caused the death of millions of indians through famines, deportation and workcamps. The article's aim was precisely - I think - to end the myth that British colonization was awesome.

Now, last time I talked about it, the only responses I got from conservative brits were among the lines of "The Gardian is a bunch of liberal crap" and/or "that guy isn't a true historian". I don't think starting the debate one more time would lead to any other conclusion.


Fragony, yeah, the french colonization (and subsequent decolonization) was quite (horribly?) brutal, and is a shame for my country and the values it pretended to protect. I won't deny that, and I think I already mentioned it in my first post. Thanks for supporting my point though :2thumbsup:
I don't think the french army was the most brutal military ever though, at least when it comes to european conflicts.

[Furunculus]

i don't really have much time for the conclusions made on the work of davis and sen.

while i am sure they are right that policy had a part to play in famine, famine happens all the time and people died by the tens of millions from pandemics and famine.

to say that one direction may have resulted in a worse famine is to ignore the unknowable results of another direction, and completely ignores other effects such as mass vaccination programs against bubonic plague and cholera to name but a few.

for those interested in knowing a little more about how we starved the sub-continent to death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famines,_epidemics,_and_public_health_in_the_British_Raj

[KukriKhan]

Africa: Doomed? I don't see why.

Debilitated? Probably, by means of the explanations above (extra-continental rapage, exploitation, religious manipulations, climateological conflicts, etc.)

It would only be doomed if there were something uniquely preventive of progress, and permanently unable to be overcome, to only that place and those inhabitants. I operate under the assumption that culture and history aside (yes, I know that's a big aside) humans are humans - adaptable, innovative, willing to work hard... With that assumption, I dismiss the "doomed", or permanently fated scenario, out of hand. No place, and no people, are doomed to grinding poverty and no hope of brighter days, ever. If it were true that Africa was doomed, and the people of Africa thought so too, we'd see mass suicides to go along with the mass homicides we've witnessed. But we don't. So Africans think there are better prospects somewhere down the line.

So, we come to "debilitated". The above conversation seems to make it clear that it is so. And I have no reason to argue against it.

Salient questions, then:

1) Does Africa need fixing?
2) Does Africa want fixing?
3) Can Africa fix itself?
4) Will Africa fix itself?
5) Is there some compelling duty for the West to fix, or help fix Africa?

After we asnswer those questions, if it's decided that the West must act, then it comes down to plans and logistics. And commitment. The West certainly CAN fix Africa, but at what price, and how quickly, and how permanently?

[Meneldil]

i don't really have much time for the conclusions made on the work of davis and sen.

while i am sure they are right that policy had a part to play in famine, famine happens all the time and people died by the tens of millions from pandemics and famine.

to say that one direction may have resulted in a worse famine is to ignore the unknowable results of another direction, and completely ignores other effects such as mass vaccination programs against bubonic plague and cholera to name but a few.

for those interested in knowing a little more about how we starved the sub-continent to death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famines,_epidemics,_and_public_health_in_the_British_Raj

Oh, we can agree on that. We could always find something positive into colonization. I mean, we were trying to "educate the savages" and to save them from their own ways right?

My only point is that British (de)colonization is often explained as a peaceful process, based on hand-shaking and trade agreement, while it obviously was not.


So Africans think there are better prospects somewhere down the line.


The sad part is that at the moment, the apparently only prospect is to move to Europe or North America. As long as people (rightfully) think they have little hope in their own countries and do their best to move out of it, any improvement is unlikely.

[Furunculus]

Oh, we can agree on that. We could always find something positive into colonization. I mean, we were trying to "educate the savages" and to save them from their own ways right?

My only point is that British (de)colonization is often explained as a peaceful process, based on hand-shaking and trade agreement, while it obviously was not.


yes, there was an element of that, exemplified by the policy of stopping the practice of Suti.

indian being a type example of terrible de-colonisation done badly and to the great detriment of the natives on the indian sub-continent.

[Spino]

Why should the west even bother rehabilitating Sub-Saharan Africa? Have we learned nothing about the consequences of attempting to save the world from itself? Long before the Europeans colonized, traded with and exploited Africa it was colonized, traded with and exploited by Arabs & Indians. Long before the Arabs & Indians Africa was colonized, traded with and exploited by the Egyptians. Long before that and in the periods in-between Africa was colonized and exploited by its multitude of native tribes and kingdoms. Let's break the vicious cycle shall we? Let's do business with Africa and leave its culture, governance and welfare to the natives.

As far as the immediate future is concerned the increasingly irrelevant Catholic Church and the growing Chinese hegemony seem to be busying themselves with how to go about 'handling' the dark continent. Better to let someone else handle that most unapologetically wild and incorrigible part of the world.

What I love most about Sub-Saharan Africa is that for good or bad it has its own, wonderfully unique way of shrugging off whatever positive or negative foreign influences and reverting to its tribalized sensibilities. I say stop dispensing terms like 'doomed' or 'debilitated' and above all, stop viewing Africa through a distinctly western or eastern lens and simply let nature take its course.

[Fragony]

What I love most about Sub-Saharan Africa is that for good or bad it has its own, wonderfully unique way of shrugging off whatever positive or negative foreign influences and reverting to its tribalized sensibilities. I say stop dispensing terms like 'doomed' or 'debilitated' and above all, stop viewing Africa through a distinctly western or eastern lens and simply let nature take its course.

You want to watch nature doing it? Nothing wrong with the argument but it just isn't possible, we would be talking about millions. Africa is going to haunt us for while.

[Kralizec]

My solution then, would be to exclude Africa entirely from the world economy until stable, secular democracies have taken root. (I define by the western measure as that is my position). That means no trade in or out, and no aid. The continent is big enough and diverse enough to be able to supply all its own needs, within itself, if the countries therein stabilise themselves enough to maintain trade links.

Though part of me is attracted to this, I'd have to reject it. I also don't think it's workable in practice because new economic powers, mainly China (Mugabe is essentially a Chinese export, but that was a while ago), have discovered Africa as a market and are eager to exploit it and probably won't be persuaded.

My ideas, vague as usual:

1) remove all agricultural subsidies in developed countries
2) review wich industries are making money in Africa and curtail those wich damage African economies in the long run
3) offer African countries aid programs but only in exchange for clear and solid demands for institutional reform. We shouldn't give money to countries who can't be expected to clean up their act in the foreseeable future. Alleviating human suffering in the short run is noble but in itself won't encourage the government to do squat in the long run. Countries who don't qualify for aid will either reflect on their choices while they continue to stagnate or be forced to prostitute themselves for China.

[Furunculus]

sorry for the necromancy, but this article is interesting and on topic:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,620268,00.html

[Vladimir]

Careful. That link contains a picture which violates forum rules. :laugh4: