Africa - Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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.