Africa - Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?

[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.

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 you'll see the following:

Climate

The climate of Africa ranges from tropical to subarctic on its highest peaks. Its northern half is primarily desert or arid, while its central and southern areas contain both savanna plains and very dense jungle (rainforest) regions. In between, there is a convergence where vegetation patterns such as sahel, and 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, were already present south of the Limpopo River by the fourth or fifth century CE"

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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


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….

[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

[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 , 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.

[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,

[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

[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.