68 Years Ago Today

[Rhyfelwyr]

No approach goes smoothly, ever.

Giving them independance didnt go smoothly either, it's just that it wasnt us who took the strain, we just up and left the mess for someone else to sort out. Had we stayed, I think we could have made something out of it. All I hear out of this free africa is war, disease, famine, and that almost everyone who means to do good in africa dont have the power to do anything beyond token efforts.

In other words, the very same conditions that existed during occupation.

The only time we find them relatively absent is prior to European involvement.

I wouldn't call Algeria a transition, the French army is notoriously brutal, always has been.

And yet France has one of the better records in terms of its colonial exploits. If they couldn't do what Greyblades is suggesting, I doubt any other colonial power could.

[Conradus]

In other words, the very same conditions that existed during occupation.

The only time we find them relatively absent is prior to European involvement.

I think you'll find that's very relative. We don't have a lot of sources for that period, but those we have don't paint that lovely a picture either.

[Greyblades]

In other words, the very same conditions that existed during occupation.

The only time we find them relatively absent is prior to European involvement.

I disagree. I seriously think it unlikely that continued european involvement could have produced the same level of problems that africa has and is facing. The European governments would be better equipped to stop race relations from producing genocide like in rwanda, european governments would not take food medicine and money from charities and give it to the men fighting civil wars.

[HoreTore]

I disagree. I seriously think it unlikely that continued european involvement could have produced the same level of problems that africa has and is facing. The European governments would be better equipped to stop race relations from producing genocide like in rwanda, european governments would not take food medicine and money from charities and give it to the men fighting civil wars.

What are these major "African problems" you're talking about?

There are some black spots left, but on the whole the african region is looking positive. 7 of the 10 fastest growing economies are in Africa, things are far from being a hell-hole.

[Sarmatian]

I disagree. I seriously think it unlikely that continued european involvement could have produced the same level of problems that africa has and is facing. The European governments would be better equipped to stop race relations from producing genocide like in rwanda, european governments would not take food medicine and money from charities and give it to the men fighting civil wars.

Except that genocide in Rwanda was influenced by policies of European governments.

[Greyblades]

Except that genocide in Rwanda was influenced by policies of European governments.

I did not know that, please explain. Also please explain how it refutes what I've been saying.

What are these major "African problems" you're talking about?

The ones that have happened over the last 60 or so years of course.

There are some black spots left, but on the whole the african region is looking positive. 7 of the 10 fastest growing economies are in Africa, things are far from being a hellhole

Fastest growing doesn't mean much if they're still the smallest. Not to mention the rest of the world is in a recession. Yes, The whole region is getting better, but if we had stayed I do believed it would have bettered a lot quicker.

[HoreTore]

I did not know that, please explain. Also please explain how it refutes what I've been saying.

I can't help you with the refuting part, but I can help you with the "why it's europe again"-part:

Rwanda was, like most non-French colonies, ruled through proxy. And the way they did that was again the standard way of doing it in Africa: buy the dominant tribe(s) and let them keep the others in line. That was a problem in Rwanda, however, since it didn't really have a dominant people or tribe. How did the Belgians and Germans solve that puzzle? They simply invented a ruling race, the Tutsi.

The Tutsi/Hutu divide was much closer to a social class divide than any racial or tribal divide prior to European involvement, with the majority Hutu being farmers and the minority Tutsi being pastorals. As is common, the pastoral lifestyle made the Tutsi the dominant warriors, and thus made the ideal puppets for the colonial masters. In the interwar years, Belgium took a lot more interest in its colony. With racial science being all the rage in Europe, it was soon introduced in Rwanda as well, and they classed Hutu and Tutsi as different races instead of classes, complete with identity cards with racial markings. Where before you could be born a Hutu and die a Tutsi, you were now born a Hutu and died and Hutu.

With the Tutsi being both in charge and in the minority, what we now have is a situation where the majority is both oppressed and given no chance to advance in society. If that's not a powder keg destined to blow up, I don't know what is.

The ones that have happened over the last 60 or so years of course.
Fastest growing doesn't mean much if they're still the smallest. Not to mention the rest of the world is in a recession. Yes, The whole region is getting better, but if we had stayed I do believed it would have bettered a lot quicker.

Most of the mistakes over the past years can be attributed to mistakes done by emerging governments, I'd say. Also, I do believe you're underestimating the African yearning for independence: I don't see how 20 more years of European rule would've done much more than creating 20 more years of guerrilla warfare. Have a look at Zimbabwe to see how much fun you'll have after a long and brutal guerrilla war.