Africa - Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?

[Lysimachus]

Africa: Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?


With the European arrival in to Africa, it was followed by enslaving the local populace and in general causing chaos to the ancient social structures which had been formed over centuries by simply tearing it apart, using them all as slaves. This was followed by attempts at serious colonisation. However, from the extreme climate of the continent (ranging from arid to tropical) it was impossible to expand any further than having a few coastal settlements due to the lack of technology available to the Europeans to sustain an attempt without the colonists attriting away. However, even though slave trade was a reason why the Europeans came there were a few more. It was possible that there were many resources further in to the continent that were unavailable to the Western countries and the kingdoms in Europe were able to carve an empire in these foreign lands without intervention from other powers that would normally happen when conquest was attempted in their locality. There were explorers who came to the land lusting for riches and then there missionaries who wanted to "bring culture" to the natives and to convert them to the "true faith" or in pity of the Africans being sold en masse around the world in an attempt to change things.

"Early European expeditions concentrated on colonising previously uninhabited islands such as the Cape Verdes and Sao Tome Island, or establishing coastal forts as a base for trade. These forts often developed areas of influence along coastal strips, but (with the exception of the River Senegal), the vast interior of Africa was not colonised and indeed little-known to Europeans until the late nineteenth century." (wiki)

"At first African diseases and hostile natives repulsed most expeditions into Africa. However, as European society made progress with new inventions and discoveries" (hyperhistory)

Map of Africa 1794

http://www.geographicus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/africa.jpg

Known areas circled. For the case of this post, exclude the circling of Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. This is on about Central and Southern Africa.

Over the time between 1400-1800 limited advance was made in to the continent with the most notable territories being either islands off the coast or the Dutch in South Africa (this was soon handed over to the British Empire), but by the 19th Century most powers finally had the technology to advance inwards in to Africa. This they did with rapid pace resulting in what is known as the "Scramble for Africa" in which most notably the French and British took enormous chunks of the continent to the point that Abyssinia remained the only independent African state at the end of the colonisation period (conquered during Mussolini's conquest in 1936).

By taking large swathes of land on the continent, the Imperialistic states in Europe were able to now supply themselves with rare exotic goods, and to circulate these around the world on a global scale (no longer did everything have to come from the Silk Route or from Arabia and Nubia) and these both helped to make them very rich and the other materials helped to expand further on the industrial boom that was going on throughout the world. It helped to start up new industries with the vast variety of goods found in Africa and it supported the current industries by providing them with large amounts of raw materials. However, this came greatly at the expense of the natives. The Europeans weren't afraid of exploiting them for their own benefit and didn't see the natives as even close to being comparable to them. They had no status at all, were pretty much regarded as objects by their foreign masters and could be punished at their whim too no matter how small the issue responsible for it may have been, even if there was one. Though to not cast too dim a light upon the colonists, it depended on their nationality so as to determine the harshness of the treatment.

"One unfortunate result of the African colonization, however, was the fact that the colonizers often mistreated the indigenous inhabitants in African colonies. Officials in the Belgian Congo won first prize as the most abusive of almost any other colonizer in Africa. After Leopold finally got the Belgian Congo running and making a profit, rumors began to reach Europe of atrocities occurring in the Congo river basin.

Leopold II used the "Belgian" Congo as a private asset rather than a state colony. He did not care what happened to the inhabitants so long as he profited from the colony's resources. When the British Foreign Office published the report, France paid little attention to it because France had started to follow the lead of the Belgian Congo, exploiting the land at whatever cost to the natives. British humanitarians and Christians, however, were shocked. Great Britain certainly did not treat the natives in British colonies the best, but at least they did not treat them as slaves or wild animals as officials treated them in the Belgian Congo or French Equatorial Africa." (hyperhistory)

The old tribal life of the African locals had been undermined and annihilated by the colonists who showed complete contempt for it and during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries drove them from their rural lifestyles in to the new cities they were constructing in Africa. These were poorly built, overpopulated and were in a terrible state. Even now, there are bitter reminders of their efforts to centralise the African communities in to big cities. They had been that way for millenia since the land hadn't supported large populations and that living in villages had meant that the spread of disease was minimal. If a village got it, it would remain a local issue and they would deal with it (or simply all die without a trace) but by concentrating them all in to cities, with the poor health levels already in place it simply meant that even the smallest disease would spread like a forest fire and cause a large death count. Despite this, the Europeans did bring a vast amount of technology with them. Since they needed it all to simply stay alive in the harsh climate it meant that the Africans were feeling the full effect of it. The colonists mingled with the local populaces too, which meant that they both learnt the ways of the Europeans and benefited from all the things they brought which would be advanced weaponry, industry, medicine and more. Even though all this helped African society to advance, the Europeans weren't teaching them anything. After the First and Second World Wars, which had completely exhausted the European powers there were strong senses of nationalism on the continent and with the colonies now unprofitable, the Europeans gradually withdrew all the while granting independence to arbitrary states. I say arbitrary, because the borders were merely hastily drawn up and failed to take in to account cultural borders which would make for a state of constant civil war on the continent which still continues to this day.

It was as if the Europeans had came in to Africa, took everything they could get and simply walked out. When they drew up the borders for the new states, they were nothing but shoddy and they had failed to teach the Africans how to govern themselves after decades of colonial rule. They had been accustomed to their traditional way of life, and when this was interfered with they had been under foreign rule which although wasn't the kindest administration it kept them from getting out at one another. With their independence though, comes new responsibilities but it also comes with a massive power vacuum that has simply been filled by the conflicting tribal groupings that have to co-exist in their "countries" with their rivals. Now as a final summation in bullet points:

Advantages:


European colonisation brought a vast amount of technology to a land which had practically been light years behind their European and Asian counterparts.
Although they were strongly prosecuted against, the Africans themselves were able to trade with the Europeans (more so prior to full-scale colonisation) and to obtain their goods of which would help them.
During the period of occupation, the European powers kept them in line. After they left, chaos ensued.
Disadvantages:

Prejudice towards the Africans resulted in atrocities from which the colonists went unpunished for.
The Africans were sold en masse around the world to spend their lives as slaves.
The society that had been in place prior to colonisation was destroyed. Life would never be the same, and not particularly for the better (judging by the state of modern-day Africa's cities)
---

So what are you guys' thoughts on the subject? I wrote this up nearly a year ago but I was wondering whether you guys agreed or disagreed with my assessment.

[Skullheadhq]

Slavery was abolished before the Scramble for Africa even started and hey, we brought them civilisation!

[AlexanderSextus]

i hope you are being sarcastic about "bringing them civilization" skullhead. Civilization by what standards? White standards?

[Skullheadhq]

i hope you are being sarcastic about "bringing them civilization" skullhead. Civilization by what standards? White standards?

Well, the standards of not eating insects, running naked with a spear in the hand behind some lions and eating fellow humans. At least we tried to civilise them and for a large part we succeeded.

[Vladimir]

i hope you are being sarcastic about "bringing them civilization" skullhead. Civilization by what standards? White standards?

:laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, the standards of not eating insects, running naked with a spear in the hand behind some lions and eating fellow humans. At least we tried to civilise them and for a large part we succeeded.You are treading a fine line here between sarcasm / racist stereotyping / downright insult. Very similar to what you did in the Polish history thread.


This thread will not devolve into a free-for-all bashfest. No defamatory remarks about Africans. :stare:

[Vladimir]

You are treading a fine line here between sarcasm / racist stereotyping / downright insult. Very similar to what you did in the Polish history thread.


This thread will not devolve into a free-for-all bashfest. No defamatory remarks about Africans. :stare:

Especially South Africans and their funny accents.

It's an interesting topic. It's fashionable to criticize colonialism but that assumes the new oppressors were worse than the old.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm

Was Africa made better by Euro colonisation? I suppose it depends on your definition of better.

What gets me is Europe has interacted with Africa for thousands of years, so why does the story in school only start with the British and there scrambling.

Hello Rome and Greece anyone

[gaelic cowboy]

Especially South Africans and their funny accents.

It's an interesting topic. It's fashionable to criticize colonialism but that assumes the new oppressors were worse than the old.

Look at it from a different angle then I suppose.

People developed ways of living that suited there own environment, Europe changed that and the standard of living went down as a result.

[PershsNhpios]

Does the continent need to have been made better or worse? Is there a prize?

Is it really so black and white?

[Skullheadhq]

People developed ways of living that suited there own environment, Europe changed that and the standard of living went down as a result.

Many villages in Africa have never even seen colonists, it was mostly the coast so nothing went down.


You are treading a fine line here between sarcasm / racist stereotyping / downright insult. Very similar to what you did in the Polish history thread.


This thread will not devolve into a free-for-all bashfest. No defamatory remarks about Africans. :stare:

I guess I forgot about all those African (sub-Saharan) civilisations with their marvelous architecture, wonderful inventions and bright philosophers then, I'm sorry, I should have better educated myself :shame:

[Lysimachus]

Many villages in Africa have never even seen colonists, it was mostly the coast so nothing went down.



I guess I forgot about all those African (sub-Saharan) civilisations with their marvelous architecture, wonderful inventions and bright philosophers then, I'm sorry, I should have better educated myself :shame:

Mali Architecture (numerous images) (http://www.101worldtravel.com/2010/10/29/1201)

Nubian pyramids (Meroe) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Nubia_pyramids1.JPG)

Yeha, Ethiopia (dated 8th Century BC) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Yeha_Tigray_Ethiopia.jpg/800px-Yeha_Tigray_Ethiopia.jpg)

Great Zimbabwe (constructed between 11th and 14th Centuries [AD]) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe)

That's some architecture for you.

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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.

Afrikaners are the living proof that you're wrong.

[Lysimachus]

Afrikaners are the living proof that you're wrong.

Have they been given thousands of years to improve themselves in conditions similar to those of the Fertile Crescent or the Mediterranean? Of course they haven't. The earliest recorded civilisation is Sumer (5th Millenium BC) so it would only be fair to give my hypothetical situation that as a starting point.

[Skullheadhq]

Have they been given thousands of years to improve themselves in conditions similar to those of the Fertile Crescent or the Mediterranean? Of course they haven't. The earliest recorded civilisation is Sumer (5th Millenium BC) so it would only be fair to give my hypothetical situation that as a starting point.

Uh, Afrikaners build a good civilisation and cultivated a part of Africa despite the 'ecological barriers' you spoke of, thus proving the 'Africa didn't develop because of the climate' thing is a myth. Also Central Africa is very fertile, more so than the Mediterrean and Africa's main export is raw recources, so the 'no recourses' argument is nonsense as well., but I think you don't know who Afrikaners are. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaners)

[Lysimachus]

Uh, Afrikaners build a good civilisation and cultivated a part of Africa despite the 'ecological barriers' you spoke of, thus proving the 'Africa didn't develop because of the climate' thing is a myth. Also Central Africa is very fertile, more so than the Mediterrean and Africa's main export is raw recources, so the 'no recourses' argument is nonsense as well., but I think you don't know who Afrikaners are. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaners)

After taking a look at that article, there's a few flaws with your argument. In regards to your first part about them building a good civilisation, seeing as they were white colonists they would obviously know how to build in a similar style to the states back in Europe. To the next point about it being very fertile, if you take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) you'll see the following:



Climate

The climate of Africa ranges from tropical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_climate) to subarctic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subarctic) on its highest peaks. Its northern half is primarily desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert) or arid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arid), while its central and southern areas contain both savanna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna) plains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain) and very dense jungle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle) (rainforest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest)) regions. In between, there is a convergence where vegetation patterns such as sahel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel), and steppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppe) dominate.


As i'd states earlier, the African climate lays on the extremities of the scale with the more moderate climates simply being hard to sustain a population on since they lack the necessary rainfall.

[Skullheadhq]

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

[Fragony]

There is no early colonisation only trading posts, the actual colonisation was in the late 19th century, and it was probably the greatest crime against humanity ever. Even a catious estimate is good for 50.000.000 people dead, and that's just the Belgium Congo. Pure rape is more like it, 'we' completely destroyed a whole continent, sliced it up.

[CBR]

It's not like the Afrikaners had to reinvent everything from scratch. So isolated or not, having gunpowder was quite nice along with other stuff.

For the environmental/climatic determinism argument there is Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He describes the problems that African cultures faced compared to the Eurasian region.

[Skullheadhq]

Even a catious estimate is good for 50.000.000 people dead, and that's just the Belgium Congo.

But that's just because Belgium is very, very evil


'we' completely destroyed a whole continent.
Hard to destroy some desert continent with a maximum of 10 huts on it.


sliced it up.
Well, nobody claimed it, it was there for us to grab, unlike China or Japan, which was never colonised.

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

[Lysimachus]

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.


"Settlements of Bantu-speaking peoples, who were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herder), were already present south of the Limpopo River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpopo_River) by the fourth or fifth century CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa#History


Hard to destroy some desert continent with a maximum of 10 huts on it.



If you're not even going to be constructive then please don't post in this thread.


Well, nobody claimed it, it was there for us to grab, unlike China or Japan, which was never colonised.

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

While European imperialism and colonisation bought a vast amount of technology to the continent, the construction of poorly planned urban metropolises simply causes the population to live in poverty and considering the climate, heavily increases the chances of diseases spreading as so many people have been brought in to close contact with one another. Prior to colonisation, African society tended to be fragmented with villages far apart from one another which meant that if there was a disease outbreak in a village it wouldn't spread, whereas now it spreads at an extremely rapid pace and is now rampant across the continent.

[gaelic cowboy]

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

Africans never domesticated the horse so they couldn't plough large fields, large scale agriculture gives surplus food leading to higher civilisation.

[Skullheadhq]

Those Bantu never left the Iron Age, and you compare them to Afrikaners? Here, let me compare them for you:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Charles_Bell_-_Jan_van_Riebeeck_se_aankoms_aan_die_Kaap.jpg
European Civilisation on the left, African civilisation on the right.

[CBR]

...Prior to colonisation, African society tended to be fragmented with villages far apart from one another which meant that if there was a disease outbreak in a village it wouldn't spread, whereas now it spreads at an extremely rapid pace and is now rampant across the continent.
Perhaps, but is that not a case of half empty glass instead of half full glass? Today there are more Africans than when the level of technology was much lower.

Some African countries have big issues with tribal/ethnic fragmentation. Some of that is caused by arbitrary borders drawn up by colonial powers.

But I doubt all can be blamed on that. Most European countries had similar issues but it is just hundreds or thousand+ years ago that most of it was fixed. And yes that fix was a mix of ethnic cleansing, migration or just one "tribe" becoming the dominant culture.

That some Africans prefer to grab an AK47 instead of using dialogue is not the fault of the colonial powers is it?

[Lysimachus]

Those Bantu never left the Iron Age, and you compare them to Afrikaners? Here, let me compare them for you:



You criticised the Africans for not inventing agriculture and I corrected you on that. I don't see in my post(s) where I make a comparison between the Bantu and Afrikaners.


Perhaps, but is that not a case of half empty glass instead of half full glass? Today there are more Africans than when the level of technology was much lower.

Some African countries have big issues with tribal/ethnic fragmentation. Some of that is caused by arbitrary borders drawn up by colonial powers.

But I doubt all can be blamed on that. Most European countries had similar issues but it is just hundreds or thousand+ years ago that most of it was fixed. And yes that fix was a mix of ethnic cleansing, migration or just one "tribe" becoming the dominant culture.

That some Africans prefer to grab an AK47 instead of using dialogue is not the fault of the colonial powers is it?

I'm not trying to criticise the colonial powers for all of the wrong in Africa, and you make perfectly valid points, but I feel the colonial powers have facilitated conflict among the Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries. As a result of this there has been overlapping borders which eventually causes conflict.

[Brenus]

"Africans never domesticated the horse"
Arabs never domesticated horses? Egypt never had War Chariots? On the most powefull civilisation based on agriculture is African.
Now, for the tropical one, horses like human died of the Tse tse Flies. That why Islam stopped at the Tse Tse fence/barrier. The Typical Muslim war fare couldn't work as no more horses....

[CBR]

I'm not trying to criticise the colonial powers for all of the wrong in Africa, and you make perfectly valid points, but I feel the colonial powers have facilitated conflict among the Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries. As a result of this there has been overlapping borders which eventually causes conflict.
There are indeed some horrible and seemingly never ending conflicts like in Angola. Mozambique seems to have come out of their civil war before it escalated into yet another Angola. And I guess the jury is still out for Congo after the last war.

Hopefully things will improve as we no longer have a Cold War to divide the continent even more. Economic problems has AFAIK also played a role. e.g. It does not help when we are utter hypocrites and demands free trade only to destroy African agriculture because of our heavily subsidised farmers.

Edit: I do think Africa in this discussion means the Sub-Saharan part.

[Brenus]

“Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries”: Absolute non-sense. Europe did have non-arbitrary borders and it didn’t prevent wars. America has strait lines borders and it didn’t provoke wars.

More seriously, what kind of borders would you draw in the Sahara, or in the Tropical Rain Forest? And what would make more sense?
If you study the creation of borders, you will soon see that they were all but arbitrary. They were either geographical (Congo) or Political but from the European Balance of Power point of view.
Now, give me inter-States African Wars… The post Colonial Wars were not between States but most of them were Civil Wars. So was the solution: to partition Africa following ethnicities, languages or Religions? And can you explain how it would have avoid wars, as it didn’t really worked out, in Europe or Asia…

The other trap to avoid about Africa is the “good and unspoiled” savage “à la Rousseau”.
Africa had wars between Kingdoms long before European set a foot…
The African Kingdoms (e.g. Ghana, Songhai, Bamana Empire) were waging wars to their neighbours and were not nice people and were de facto the slavers…
Ethiopian Empire existed from 13rd Century to 1974 and the fall of the Emperor.
Shaka, creator of the Zulu Empire had quite drastic methods to put people on line…

Now, was Africa made better?
In term of heath, yes, transportation, yes, and in a lot of aspects.
Does it make colonisation good? No.
It is always the same problem: Did Stalin modernised Feudal Russia? Yes. But at what price!!!
Did the Gaul were better of after the Roman Conquest? After Caesar on his on admission killed a quarter and enslaved a quarter… Yes, but again at what price…

I am the one recognising that those who say “better starving than slavery” never starved…
But it doesn’t make slavery acceptable….

[Skullheadhq]

It is always the same problem: Did Stalin modernised Feudal Russia? Yes. But at what price!!!

Winning WWII, how would WWII have looked like without Russian modernisation?

[CBR]

Winning WWII, how would WWII have looked like without Russian modernisation?
Not helping Hitler in attacking Poland might have changed something...perhaps no war at all.

[gaelic cowboy]

"Africans never domesticated the horse"
Arabs never domesticated horses? Egypt never had War Chariots? On the most powefull civilisation based on agriculture is African.
Now, for the tropical one, horses like human died of the Tse tse Flies. That why Islam stopped at the Tse Tse fence/barrier. The Typical Muslim war fare couldn't work as no more horses....

Sorry I meant to say the Africans in Sub-Saharan Africa never domesticated the horse obviously.

People in Southern regions never developed a type of agriculture capable of creating a very highly advanced society.

[Strike For The South]

Anytime you deprive a human of his rights and liberties no good can come of it.

I'd rather be an uncivilized freeman than a civilized serf breaking my back and watching as my land is being exploited by another person.

No doubt the African continent lagged behind Europe in every possible measure but that does not mean "the white mans burden" becomes a valid arguement, merley an opaque excuse for exploitation

[Skullheadhq]

Sorry I meant to say the Africans in Sub-Saharan Africa never domesticated the horse obviously.

People in Southern regions never developed a type of agriculture capable of creating a very highly advanced society.

That's what I said since post 1 ;)

[Strike For The South]

That's what I said since post 1 ;)

This is not because they are inferior and it does not justify their subjugation

[Lysimachus]

There are indeed some horrible and seemingly never ending conflicts like in Angola. Mozambique seems to have come out of their civil war before it escalated into yet another Angola. And I guess the jury is still out for Congo after the last war.

Hopefully things will improve as we no longer have a Cold War to divide the continent even more. Economic problems has AFAIK also played a role. e.g. It does not help when we are utter hypocrites and demands free trade only to destroy African agriculture because of our heavily subsidised farmers.

Edit: I do think Africa in this discussion means the Sub-Saharan part.

In the OP I wrote just below the map:

"Known areas circled. For the case of this post, exclude the circling of Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. This is on about Central and Southern Africa."


So like you said, it's to discuss the areas below North Africa.


“Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries”: Absolute non-sense. Europe did have non-arbitrary borders and it didn’t prevent wars. America has strait lines borders and it didn’t provoke wars.

More seriously, what kind of borders would you draw in the Sahara, or in the Tropical Rain Forest? And what would make more sense?
If you study the creation of borders, you will soon see that they were all but arbitrary. They were either geographical (Congo) or Political but from the European Balance of Power point of view.


Wdll the last few words sum it up.The borders were drawn from the European point of view. In doing this they ignored cultural boundaries which of course has now left areas of the continent in anarchy as groups fight each other over a disputed territory.


Now, give me inter-States African Wars… The post Colonial Wars were not between States but most of them were Civil Wars. So was the solution: to partition Africa following ethnicities, languages or Religions? And can you explain how it would have avoid wars, as it didn’t really worked out, in Europe or Asia…



That would have been the solution, yes. In doing so it limits the level of friction between ethnicities and religions and minimises the risk of war breaking out. Of course, knowing what humans are like, war is inevitable but we can at least attempt to minimise the risk.


The other trap to avoid about Africa is the “good and unspoiled” savage “à la Rousseau”.
Africa had wars between Kingdoms long before European set a foot…
The African Kingdoms (e.g. Ghana, Songhai, Bamana Empire) were waging wars to their neighbours and were not nice people and were de facto the slavers…
Ethiopian Empire existed from 13rd Century to 1974 and the fall of the Emperor.
Shaka, creator of the Zulu Empire had quite drastic methods to put people on line…



I've never claimed they were good people, just that massive scale enslavement and murder of blacks in Africa was entirely unacceptable. Slavery was always practiced on the continent, seeing as Arabs did it themselves, but not to the extent that the Western world achieved.


Now, was Africa made better?
In term of heath, yes,

I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. Disease in Africa is atrociously rampant and this is drummed in to our minds every day with adverts about donating to charities to help the people there.


transportation, yes, and in a lot of aspects.


I agree with you there.


Does it make colonisation good? No.
It is always the same problem: Did Stalin modernised Feudal Russia? Yes. But at what price!!!
Did the Gaul were better of after the Roman Conquest? After Caesar on his on admission killed a quarter and enslaved a quarter… Yes, but again at what price…

I am the one recognising that those who say “better starving than slavery” never starved…
But it doesn’t make slavery acceptable….

But the thing here is that the mass enslavement was entirely unnecessary. What purpose did it really serve besides to make the rich richer? They'd subjugated their own populations for centuries during the Middle Ages and now they were going out of their way to inflict this absolute domination over others. On the other hand, one could argue with your Stalin analogy that it was necessary to an extent because he had modernised ex-Imperial Russia at such a rapid rate to keep up with the rest of the world. If you think about it, if it wasn't for this industrialisation then they may not have been able to hold off the German armies during Operation Barbarossa which was done at heavy expense in real life anyway.

It's good to see this thread's taken off anyway, I thought it would have just been left to die because the Monastery seemed so quiet :no:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I guess I forgot about all those African (sub-Saharan) civilisations with their marvelous architecture, wonderful inventions and bright philosophers then, I'm sorry, I should have better educated myself :shame:It is not about education. It is about respect and common decency, to maintain an acceptable standard of debate.


Maybe an example can make my point clear:

L: 'What do you guys think? Is Hawking a brilliant scientist or a mere mediocre?
X: 'I think despite his being a popular media darling Hawking's a genuinely great astronomer and'
S: 'Disagree! Stephen Hawking is a stupid cripple!'
Moderator: 'Please keep the discussion civil'
S:' 'Oh I'm sorry, I thought Hawking was a cripple in a wheelchair. If not, then I'm, sorry, perhaps I should have better educated myself'


It is not clever. It is not witty sarcasm. It is sheer defamation, of a most unpleasant tone. Agressive belittling of others, almost as if seizing the opportunity to pose as a contribution to an ongoing debate. A debate which is then sadly dragged down into the gutter by it.

[Fragony]

But that's just because Belgium is very, very evil

Leopold II is really one of the few persons in history I would call evil. To do what he did for nothing but selfish reasons makes him the unchallenged #1. Maybe you do need to educate yourself on what happened there. You should read 'King Leopolds ghost' by Adam Hochshild, if you don't put it away a few times you certainly are more vigilant than me. It's worse than the holocaust, it's really no thing to mock

[KrooK]

Brenus is right. We can't see it into white - black colours. Some part of colonisation were bad and some were good.
Good was industrial development and new level of civilisation. You mentioned about ancient civilisations of Africa. But into 19th century they were already ancient.
Theis level of development was far worse than even worst european country. Colonisation was possibility to perform industrial revolution there.
On the other hand massive killing, extermination of whole tribes and atlantic slavery trade are one of the worse part of history. Of course we can't blame only white people for slave trading. Some african tribes took part into slave trading as traders not "trade material".

All in all - colonisation made Africa better. But for what price?

BTW - do you know who did worst thing for Africa imo. Soviet Union. They gave AK 47 people who some years ago left stone age. This made normal tribal wars into massive killing.

[Skullheadhq]

Leopold II is really one of the few persons in history I would call evil. To do what he did for nothing but selfish reasons makes him the unchallenged #1. Maybe you do need to educate yourself on what happened there. You should read 'King Leopolds ghost' by Adam Hochshild, if you don't put it away a few times you certainly are more vigilant than me. It's worse than the holocaust, it's really no thing to mock

You know, Leopold II wanted to invade the Netherlands once and turn Limburg and N-Brabant in a second Congo, I wouldn't have minded though.

[Fragony]

You know, Leopold II wanted to invade the Netherlands once and turn Limburg and N-Brabant in a second Congo, I wouldn't have minded though.

Yeah I know that. If he would do that to his neighbours imagine what he would do against the blacks who were considered to be nothing but talking apes at the time. I really can't think of a more vile chapter in western history. Read the diary's of mr Stanleyhat, it's stunning how Blacks were seen as mere animals, he describes mindless killing as if it was a hunt, which it was. The greatest crime in modern history, also the most unknown. Words cannot describe how Africa got :daisy:, it's an avalanche of mindless cruelty

[Pannonian]

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

The Boers didn't do a particularly good job of civilisation though, hence why we British had to come in to put them down. Britain - now there's a civilisation worth talking about, unlike the Dutch-speaking pretenders.

[PershsNhpios]

Edit.

Baiting.

[Fragony]

The Boers didn't do a particularly good job of civilisation though, hence why we British had to come in to put them down.

You make it sound so easy ~;)

[Skullheadhq]

Edit.

Taking the bait.

[Fragony]

Edit.

Taking the bait.

You are really being tasteless about the greatest tragedy that ever happened to living and breathing people. Joseph Comrad wrote his Heart of Darkness after a trip to the Congo, it's movie adoptation set in Vietnam mentions the cutting off arms, that was standard policy in the Congo. For every bullet fired a hand was to be returned. After a while they didn't bother wasting bullets and just cut of the arms, and sold the bullets on the black market. Besides the 50.000.000 PEOPLE who died there are a lot more that got mutilated that way, many more milliions than these mere 50, some are alive even today as it lasted till the twenties of last century,

[Riedquat]

All in all - colonization made Africa better. But for what price?

I feel this answer to be not right... How is Africa better? We not only lack of enough objectivity but subjectivity too to answer such question, only Africans can answer it.

I personally think it's not better, or at least is not the better it should be to justify such colonization. I have the impression that if nobody had messed with the African continent the situation today couldn't be worse. What is done is done... but justify it... thats something I'm not able to do.

[Lysimachus]

One could argue that it was good because of the technology it bought, but do Africans themselves generally find this better than the way things would have been if it had never happened? Was tribal life actually worse than before the Europeans came over?

[KrooK]

Some things changed. I think changed on better.

1. There are almost no slavery into Africa (with some exeptions like Western Sahara).
2. Some of the countries are gaining cash (for example from tourists).
3. They generally do not eat themselves (with some exeptions).
4. Countries and citizens of these countries are generally richer. Of course not as rich as western europe or usa but much richer than they were.
5. African countries have possibilities like rest of the world. They do not use it. But it does not mean that they have no possibilities.

I personally think that price was very high but equal. Civilisation jumps always costs much (Poland is best proof how much sometimes).

[al Roumi]

This thread is an obscene reflection of how the Org's demographic can lead discussions down a rabbit hole of stereotype, partitial truths and jingoism, tied off with supposedly well meaning condescension.

Contemplating the ball of :daisy: some here consider thought, I don't even know where to start unravelling it. I am impressed with the will of those who have tried, mostly it just frightens me.

I have to respond to one point in particular, and a very minor one at that though:

The use of horses to plow in Europe was indeed a key medieval agricultural development, but it was due to the spread of Chinese technology (put that in your "white is right" pipe and smoke it!) - namely the Horse collar, which allowed a horse to better pull a plough (previous designs tended to strangle the horse, the harder it pulled). The point has already been made of how isolated and un-horse friendly much of sub-saharan Africa was, so it's hardly surprising that neither the horse, nor horse drawn plowing, was adopted there.

Prior to horse drawn ploughing, the trend was for Oxen to be used. Cheaper to own and run, and more resilient than a horse, Oxen were still used in Europe up untill the 1950s in some places.

[gaelic cowboy]

Prior to horse drawn ploughing, the trend was for Oxen to be used. Cheaper to own and run, and more resilient than a horse, Oxen were still used in Europe up untill the 1950s in some places.

They didnt use oxen either in sub-saharan africa cos they did not have any they did have cattle but they are are not really suitable for ploughing hence no large scale agri developed

[Strike For The South]

So you denied people all the rights you enjoyed and put them under subjugation for hundreds of years

And most of you think they are better off?

I feel like dropping some of you in Zambia

You realize the stereotype of the African savage is an excuse right? There were advanced civilzations in Afirca....

[gaelic cowboy]

You realize the stereotype of the African savage is an excuse right? There were advanced civilzations in Afirca....

Were all Africans when you get right down to it.

[al Roumi]

So you denied people all the rights you enjoyed and put them under subjugation for hundreds of years

And most of you think they are better off?

I feel like dropping some of you in Zambia


My thoughts exactly, although I might give them a quick sex change and substitue Zambia for DRC.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nevermind.

[Fragony]

Little correction Alh_P, the heavy plow that was used here comes from Easter-Europe

[al Roumi]

Little correction Alh_P, the heavy plow that was used here comes from Easter-Europe

Heh, did not expect to get into a discussion on the history of agriculture (as fascinating as it is), I wasn't talking about the plough itself, but the attachment and beastie that pulls it along and through the earth. :bow:

[Fragony]

Heh, did not expect to get into a discussion on the history of agriculture (as fascinating as it is), I wasn't talking about the plough itself, but the attachment and beastie that pulls it along and through the earth. :bow:

These evolved because ploughs changed, they grew smaller and were easier to pull, these big swords weren't needed for the softer soil in Western-Europe, easily pulled by the multi-purpose horses.

[Spartakus]

Nothing is ever made better or worse by anything, except from a subjective point of view. Arguing that European imperialism was good because of railroads or bad because of slavery requires one to have set preferences in favour or disfavour of one or the other, it's not at all a question about whether Africa was made better or worse objectively speaking but whether it developed according to our tastes. Today most people like railroads but not slavery, in the past you had people who liked slavery but not railroads. Suffice to say; Europeans brought both railroads and slavery and neither made Africa better or worse, merely different. From there on it's up to you to decide how to feel about those differences based on your own convictions.

[Noncommunist]

So, how would the borders issue be resolved? At least for the Americas, countries were allowed to de jure take over land so Chile could take Bolivia's coast line, America could take Mexico's northern territories, Paraguay could get shrunken. Are the America's more peaceful because of it? Or are they simply more peaceful because they wiped out or heavily bred with the natives and wiping out separate ethnic identities of the previous inhabitants? And in Europe, borders were established over many years. Eventually, many got a nation states. But even so, there are still nations without their own states and here and there, they've been a bit violent in the last 50 years.

So, how would borders be reapportioned and who would decide it? And how would you get some nations to accept the split?



Hmm

Was Africa made better by Euro colonisation? I suppose it depends on your definition of better.

What gets me is Europe has interacted with Africa for thousands of years, so why does the story in school only start with the British and there scrambling.

Hello Rome and Greece anyone

And Africans colonizing Europe. Carthage owning eastern Spain, and several African Muslim groups moving into Spain and either displacing Christians or other Muslims.

[Strike For The South]

Nevermind.

Oh Geez, I'm not going to report you now lets get to the part where you call me Fraulein :love:


[Language and personal insults to third poster removed]

[Brandy Blue]

Strike has a point. However, it sometimes happens that good actions have unintended bad results and bad actions have unintended good results. I think most people would agree that exploitation is immoral. However, it is quite another question whether or not Africa benefitted in the long term.

Personally I think that the question is unanswerable for the following reasons.

1: Colonialism caused such profound changes that the consequences of those changes have not yet played out. It will be some time before people can look back and see the results of the changes. It is too soon to tell.

2: It is not really possible to separate out the results of colonialism from the results of actions taken by Africans after the colonial period, or from post colonial non-African influences. You can blame a war, for instance, on colonialism or on the African leaders or even out external post colonial pressures, or on all of the above.

3: Africa is vast and comprises many cultures, each with a different experience of the impact of colonialism. Does colonialism and its consequences look the same to a Cairene prostitute, a Botsawanan bishop, a South African miner, a Boer, a person whose life was saved by a hospital founded by missionaries and a Bushman? Probably not. Is it possible to give a simple blanket statement opinion that truly does justice to all these different stories?

4: So few people are qualified to deal with the question. Few outsiders do have the necessary African perspective to understand the subjective side of the impact of colonialism. But Africans, in my experience, take it as an article of faith that colonialism was bad and that it would be unpatriotic to think otherwise. So its catch 22. Few people who understand the inside story have enough objectivity to really grapple with the question.

All in all, its like asking if the world would be a better place if the Roman Empire had never happened. History does not tell you what would have happened under other circumstances.

[Furunculus]

Hmm. Was Africa made better by Euro colonisation? I suppose it depends on your definition of better

Or to put it another way; was Africa made worse by Euro colonisation?
When Frederick Courtenay Selous was mounting expeditions northwards from south africa he quickly bumped into the Matabele and Mashona, the latter of whom lived in abject terror of regular decimation and slavery by the former. The Mashona were more than happy to see the brutality of the Matabele curbed. To put this in context, when I lived in Malawi in the 80's mothers still told their children to behave otherwise the Matabele would come for them........... one hundred years after their power had been broken by the British!

this is not a broad brush defence of colonisation in general, for the downsides were horrendous in some cases, but Belgium and Portugal were an order of magnitude worse in the treatment of their subject populations, and its not as is everything was sweetness and light before the British arrived.

the worst thing we did was create boundaries regardless of ethnic/tribal powerbases, sometimes as a method of divide and conquer. the result upon independence was a populace that recognised no community cohesion, and thus we are in significant ways responsible for the strife since independence.

[Strike For The South]

Personally I think that the question is unanswerable for the following reasons.

[QUOTE]1: Colonialism caused such profound changes that the consequences of those changes have not yet played out. It will be some time before people can look back and see the results of the changes. It is too soon to tell.

I can point to many genoicdes and civil wars that happend soley because of arbatriary border lines, those are most certainly results no?



2: It is not really possible to separate out the results of colonialism from the results of actions taken by Africans after the colonial period, or from post colonial non-African influences. You can blame a war, for instance, on colonialism or on the African leaders or even out external post colonial pressures, or on all of the above.
The actions of the post colinial period are a direct result of the Euros leaving offering no assistance in new countries that mushed whole different cultures together, the last 50 years of Africa is cleaning up that mess


3: Africa is vast and comprises many cultures, each with a different experience of the impact of colonialism. Does colonialism and its consequences look the same to a Cairene prostitute, a Botsawanan bishop, a South African miner, a Boer, a person whose life was saved by a hospital founded by missionaries and a Bushman? Probably not. Is it possible to give a simple blanket statement opinion that truly does justice to all these different stories?

Saving one tree does not change the fact you burned and raped 80


4: So few people are qualified to deal with the question. Few outsiders do have the necessary African perspective to understand the subjective side of the impact of colonialism. But Africans, in my experience, take it as an article of faith that colonialism was bad and that it would be unpatriotic to think otherwise. So its catch 22. Few people who understand the inside story have enough objectivity to really grapple with the question.


For me it's simple ethics

[Brandy Blue]

For me it's simple ethics

You are certainly entitled to that point of view, but I am suspicious of simple answers to complex situations. Wars seldom happen for one reason. Colonialists gave Ethiopia and Eritrea reason to fight each other, but Eritreans set off the 1998 war and refused to accept mediations for a status quo settlement. Does that make it all Eritrea's fault? well, obviously not entirely, but their leaders could have prevented thousands of deaths.

I respect your concern for justice and for the suffering of victims. It is a fine trait to have. However, it is possible to draw very different conclusions from that beginning.

For example, I could tell my son that he might as well not bother at school because American society holds down African-Americans and he will never get a good job anyway. However, I don't think that is what he needs to hear. He needs to understand the truth - that sometimes he will be treated unjustly. But that is only part of the picture. He also needs to avoid self-destructive behavior like inattention at school, even if it can be traced back (in a sense) to how white Americans treat blacks. When people blame everything on what others did to them, they give up on themselves because they feel they have no control over the bad things that keep happening to them. That is not just true for individuals. It is true for whole ethnic groups or even nations.

Blaming African conflicts on colonial powers is part of the truth, but not the whole. The fact remains that African people have sometimes made the decision to deal with post colonial problems by killing each other and at other times have chosen not to. Can you imagine the blood bath that South Africa would be now if it were not for many people both in ANC and Inkatha who choose peace over violence? Not that things are perfect there right now, but they could be much much worse.

I was privileged as a child to get to know one of the people who worked uncomplainingly for forgiving reconciliation. I regret to this day that I was too young to understand what a fine person he is. I had so much to learn from him. It is true that saving one tree does not make up for wantonly destroying eighty. It is also true that the one guy who stands up against eighty guys to save that tree deserves honor and respect. If you leave him out of the picture you leave out something important, regardless of whether that guy is a white colonialist or an African struggling to heal his wounded country.

I realize that there is a fine line between saying that victims must take responsiblity and unjustly blaming them for the consiquences of other people's actions. I realize also that it is very hard for Africans to change their situation, perhaps harder than any of us can understand. Nevertheless, I must disagree with you, even though I respect what you have to say.

[Furunculus]

good post, thoroughly agreed.

[al Roumi]

Now if only we could have started off this way (that's not a reflection of the OP).

[Karel de Stoute]

I don't know if it has been mentioned before but Africans have a different set of morals than western society. Theres a reason they were called savages. Those buggers used to eat human flesh and some still do(congolese rebels). Now you can say okay, they are just different. But i like to say that our western values are a lot better than the African ones. Western, Islamic, Chinese and other comparible cultures i value equally but africa is just something else. Horrible thing are going on there: They still burn witches, a genocide every 10 years, systematic rape in the congo, aids speading wild because the pope said they cant use a condom, lets boil the skin of an albino because it has magical power.... In the past, it wasn't any better in Europa. But atleast we evolved past being primitive savages. Colonisation is the best thing that ever happend to that hellhole of a continent: Modern medicine, education, higher standard of living(everything beats walking around naked and living in mudhuts), more sofisticated and efficient systems of government then tribalism, contact with the rest of the world other than the occasional slave market... They to can evolve, adopt some western values like equal rights for all people(instead of, look overthere, a hutu cockroagh let's bash his skull in with a machete). Colonisation was a bit rough at first but all with the best intentions. I firmly believe in the white mans burden. It was our duty to interfere with africa. And that's not racist, if history would have gone differently, and the african continent evolved further than eurasia it would be their duty to come and civilize us. The biggest fault with colonisation is that it ended to soon. Those countries should have been gradually prepared for their independance over the course of many decades afterwich they would finally be able to abandon their primitive toughts and enjoy the same standard of living we do.

[Fisherking]

I think you have over generalized with you statement Karel de Stoute.

Some of the practices seem brutal and barbaric but how widely are they spread?

Every Continent has had its good guys and bad guys.

Some cultures are more palatable to us than others. There are many groups in Africa as different as Danes from Arabs and to lump them all together obscures the picture.

Civilization and culture are relative terms. Many of our own advances have come from contact with so called savages.

Much of representative government came from Native American Tribes as did the knife, fork, and spoon you eat with at meals. Prior to that our European Ancestors ate with fingers and eating knife.

Africa has given us mostly food stuffs and ways of cooking.

It has seldom been the case that subject people have been viewed as much better than beasts. We do a poor job of assessing what is worthwhile and are more intent in remaking the same familiar society as where we came from.

From Ireland to the Pacific Islands the pattern seems much the same. The Natives are incapable of self rule so we must act in their best interest if they like it or not.

But the cultures had managed just fine before we got there.

Did we aid them to advance technologically, indeed.

Did we teach them to solve problems of government, no but then we don’t always do the best job either.

But that is just my view.

[Strike For The South]

I don't know if it has been mentioned before but Africans have a different set of morals than western society.
Those buggers used to eat human flesh and some still do(congolese rebels). Now you can say okay, they are just different. But i like to say that our western values are a lot better than the African ones. Western, Islamic, Chinese and other comparible cultures i value equally but africa is just something else. Horrible thing are going on there: They still burn witches, a genocide every 10 years, systematic rape in the congo, aids speading wild because the pope said they cant use a condom, lets boil the skin of an albino because it has magical power.... In the past, it wasn't any better in Europa. But atleast we evolved past being primitive savages. Theres a reason they were called savages.
Colonisation is the best thing that ever happend to that hellhole of a continent: Modern medicine, education, higher standard of living(everything beats walking around naked and living in mudhuts), more sofisticated and efficient systems of government then tribalism, contact with the rest of the world other than the occasional slave market... They to can evolve, adopt some western values like equal rights for all people(instead of, look overthere, a hutu cockroagh let's bash his skull in with a machete). Colonisation was a bit rough at first but all with the best intentions. I firmly believe in the white mans burden. It was our duty to interfere with africa. And that's not racist, if history would have gone differently, and the african continent evolved further than eurasia it would be their duty to come and civilize us. The biggest fault with colonisation is that it ended to soon. Those countries should have been gradually prepared for their independance over the course of many decades afterwich they would finally be able to abandon their primitive toughts and enjoy the same standard of living we do.

Even if any this rubbish were true. That does not deny them humanity

Aside from you being on an obvious roll

[Karel de Stoute]

i never said africans were beasts, i just said they have a lot to learn.
Colonisators never considered them to be animals.
Their culture was concidered as a childish form of our own and it was the civilized nations duty to help them mature.

[Fisherking]

i never said africans were beasts, i just said they have a lot to learn.
Colonisators never considered them to be animals.
Their culture was concidered as a childish form of our own and it was the civilized nations duty to help them mature.

That is quite true.

You didn’t call them animals.

I hope you didn’t misunderstand me.

I only said it was an over generalization and pointed out the attitudes of some colonial types.

I was trying to point up the value in some other cultures.

As for SFTS...he gets worked up easy.

:stars:

[Karel de Stoute]

I apologise for exagerating it all a bit, that's a fault i usually make when trying to make a point.
Yes, fisherking, u are right that western culture also learned alot from other cultures. But when you compare the trade with Africa: foodstuff from them to everything the west brought to Africa. I believe gratitude is the least we can expect.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I believe gratitude is the least we can expect.Now let's not get carried away...



Edit: Come to think of it, carried away is exactly what happened, millions of times, as they were brutally shipped across the Atlantic.

[Karel de Stoute]

Lets not forget that Africans being carried away as slaves could never have happend without local support. European slavetraders never went inland. They just had to wait in coastal setlements for local chiefs willing to sell rivaling tribes or their own population to show up and trade them for guns and alcohol. The slavetrade indeed totaly disrupted the local society but that was partialy their own resposability. If local chiefs were not as greedy as they were, they could have easily stopped participating and europeans would have been forced to look for other sources of cheap labor.

[51point1]

You are certainly entitled to that point of view, but I am suspicious of simple answers to complex situations. Wars seldom happen for one reason. Colonialists gave Ethiopia and Eritrea reason to fight each other, but Eritreans set off the 1998 war and refused to accept mediations for a status quo settlement. Does that make it all Eritrea's fault? well, obviously not entirely, but their leaders could have prevented thousands of deaths.

I respect your concern for justice and for the suffering of victims. It is a fine trait to have. However, it is possible to draw very different conclusions from that beginning.

For example, I could tell my son that he might as well not bother at school because American society holds down African-Americans and he will never get a good job anyway. However, I don't think that is what he needs to hear. He needs to understand the truth - that sometimes he will be treated unjustly. But that is only part of the picture. He also needs to avoid self-destructive behavior like inattention at school, even if it can be traced back (in a sense) to how white Americans treat blacks. When people blame everything on what others did to them, they give up on themselves because they feel they have no control over the bad things that keep happening to them. That is not just true for individuals. It is true for whole ethnic groups or even nations.

Blaming African conflicts on colonial powers is part of the truth, but not the whole. The fact remains that African people have sometimes made the decision to deal with post colonial problems by killing each other and at other times have chosen not to. Can you imagine the blood bath that South Africa would be now if it were not for many people both in ANC and Inkatha who choose peace over violence? Not that things are perfect there right now, but they could be much much worse.

I was privileged as a child to get to know one of the people who worked uncomplainingly for forgiving reconciliation. I regret to this day that I was too young to understand what a fine person he is. I had so much to learn from him. It is true that saving one tree does not make up for wantonly destroying eighty. It is also true that the one guy who stands up against eighty guys to save that tree deserves honor and respect. If you leave him out of the picture you leave out something important, regardless of whether that guy is a white colonialist or an African struggling to heal his wounded country.

I realize that there is a fine line between saying that victims must take responsiblity and unjustly blaming them for the consiquences of other people's actions. I realize also that it is very hard for Africans to change their situation, perhaps harder than any of us can understand. Nevertheless, I must disagree with you, even though I respect what you have to say.
Read through this entire thread and I must say, this is quite easily my favorite post.


I apologise for exagerating it all a bit, that's a fault i usually make when trying to make a point.
Yes, fisherking, u are right that western culture also learned alot from other cultures. But when you compare the trade with Africa: foodstuff from them to everything the west brought to Africa. I believe gratitude is the least we can expect.
You said some things in your earlier post on the barbarity of pre-colonial Africa that I hated to hear but couldn't refute. Truth's...to an extent. But Gratitude? You believe Africa owes gratitude for the condition it was left in? You don't give a man a bonus for a half assed job. You don't leave firearms in the hands of men that could have only kill each other with spears before and feel you deserve gratitude.


Lets not forget that Africans being carried away as slaves could never have happend without local support. European slavetraders never went inland. They just had to wait in coastal setlements for local chiefs willing to sell rivaling tribes or their own population to show up and trade them for guns and alcohol. The slavetrade indeed totaly disrupted the local society but that was partialy their own resposability. If local chiefs were not as greedy as they were, they could have easily stopped participating and europeans would have been forced to look for other sources of cheap labor.
Well isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? As savage and greedy as these chiefs were, these monarch's superior morality didn't lead them once to second guess where thousands upon thousands of living breathing human beings were being ripped from and sent to. Come on, Europe was doing nobody but themselves a favor in taking one from his home to a foreign land in bondage. No effable level of poverty justifies that.

[Brandy Blue]

Read through this entire thread and I must say, this is quite easily my favorite post.


Mine too. I'm so modest. :) My thanks to you and others who said nice things.

[Fragony]

I apologise for exagerating it all a bit, that's a fault i usually make when trying to make a point.
Yes, fisherking, u are right that western culture also learned alot from other cultures. But when you compare the trade with Africa: foodstuff from them to everything the west brought to Africa. I believe gratitude is the least we can expect.

While I don't agree they have anything to be grateful for, why apologise for making a fair point.

[Strike For The South]

The West raped Africa for diamonds, rubber, oil, manpower, ecetera

Not just "foodstuffs"

[Karel de Stoute]

I was talking about what we learned from eachother and without knowhow from the west all those precious natural resources would still be under the ground. Nobody would profit from them, not the colonials and not the corrupt dictators that followed them.

[Centurion1]

while true strike those are simply resources not cultural and technological items of interest.

[Prince Cobra]

I think we should all agree that Japan is extremely poor developing country. It missed her historical chance to be a colony and now I have no idea how the country will get out of the swamp it is now. It is a good example what happens with countries that did not become colonies. Just an example. ~:)

[Centurion1]

unique example really. plus japan had a highly developed culture before contact with europe.

[Fragony]

The West raped Africa for diamonds, rubber, oil, manpower, ecetera

Sure but did the place get any worse by it, I'm with you in the ethical department but can you really say it has gotten worse. Put it on a 1 to 10 scale, nothing is known about pre-colonial Africa except from Arab scources and they weren't very friendly towards the Africans either, no written scources . All that remains is what we find good or bad, and we don't live there.

[Strike For The South]

I'm going to have a coronary


while true strike those are simply resources not cultural and technological items of interest.

Resources which were sent right back to Europe to fund everything from the Bismarck to the Lourve. All the while Africans were put underbondage, working the land for the white man while he took all the glory

Really jives with the the whole enlightenment thing we try to hold up


I was talking about what we learned from eachother and without knowhow from the west all those precious natural resources would still be under the ground. Nobody would profit from them, not the colonials and not the corrupt dictators that followed them.

So it is ok to rape, murder, pillage, and enslave as long as you know how to get to those rescources?

Listen guys I have no problem looking at colonialism through a scholarly, historic point of view but when you tell me to look at it with my own morals and ethics and claim that it was anything more than a black mark on human progress, that I simply will not do.

The reverberations are still being felt today, my great-great grandparents hid slaves, my great grandparents tuaght sharecroppers how to read, my grandparents saw lynchings and , my parents saw black men being beat up for not saying "sir" to some 19 year old white bully.

Edit: I come from a very long line of Abolishonist Protastents, most of whom would make Rhy blush

Do not sit here for a second and tell me Africans owe us anything. If anything we owe Africans for not rising as one and slaying us because it is most certianly what we deserve



Sure but did the place get any worse by it, I'm with you in the ethical department but can you really say it has gotten worse. Put it on a 1 to 10 scale, nothing is known about pre-colonial Africa. All that remains is what we find good or bad, and we don't live there.
O RLY?

[Fragony]

Yes RLY, so if you want to scale it you have nothing to compare it with, common sense says infinitely worse of course, especially given thr rubber trade that was sickness reinvented, but can you say for better or for worse? If you can please do

[Strike For The South]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa

To start

There are a few missing but those that are seem to coincide with Euro arrivial

[Centurion1]

its a unanswerable question. did the west coming to africa hurt it? yes. has it helped it in some ways? yes. the real question is did it speed up the development of their technology faster than they would have done on their own?

[Strike For The South]

its a unanswerable question. did the west coming to africa hurt it? yes. has it helped it in some ways? yes. the real question is did it speed up the development of their technology faster than they would have done on their own?

No the real question is did we do irrerperable harm to a people which should've been allowed to go through the same growing pains as everyone else

We did, and now the arbatrairy lines on the continent are nothing more than hotbeds for pestilence and despair

I'm not asking for you to feel bad about it, just acknoweldge it.

[Fragony]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa

To start

There are a few missing but those that are seem to coincide with Euro arrivial

I know that. But the west is more advanced it doesn't hurt all that much admitting that. But it doesn't matter, would they have been happier had we just leaved them to be, yes, and it's a tragedy we didn't

[Strike For The South]

I know that. But the west is more advanced it doesn't hurt all that much admitting that. But it doesn't matter, would they have been happier had we just leaved them to be, yes, and it's a tragedy we didn't

I agree with you.

[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.:shrug:

[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 :daisy: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 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126448-Treaty-of-Versailles-Modern-Reappraisal) 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 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126448-Treaty-of-Versailles-Modern-Reappraisal) 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.