GENERALLY(I cant stress that enough), are african (black african,if you must) nations, that used to be colonies, better off now, or when they were colonies?

Some are, others aren't. There seems to be an interesting correlation between IMF/World Bank support and failed states by the way. :D

Are we going to make this a Jeffrey Sachs vs William Easterly debate?

Also are the people of the nation better off or worse off. Could be that the natives are better off but the nation is worse off. Very case specific really.

Some are worse, but to no fault of the Europeans. Alot of things happen you can't predict. (AIDS)

Well, the natives should be the nation.

Some nations are in such a bad shape that the original question makes sense.
I think colonialism was a dead end for Africa, further development required independence. The way independence was achieved was sometimes messy, and led to messier events later... lots of wars ant tyrannical rulers. The average person living during that time period (up to the present in a large part of Africa) might have been beter off living under some of the forms of colonial rule. But later generations will most likely be better off.

the map of Africa need to be TOTALLY redon, the enthnic groups slaughter eachother (Rwanda), it also needs help controling AIDS

Africa was on its way up before AIDS, dictators, instability and all; the question is: would the imperial governments given countries immediate aid for AIDS?

the map of Africa need to be TOTALLY redon, the enthnic groups slaughter eachother (Rwanda), it also needs help controling AIDS

Many of these ethnic groups (such as those in Rwanda) were never really ethnic groups, but instead "groups" imposed by the Europeans so that the general population of the land was more "split", and also to give them the "superior" ethnic group to help them govern.

Africa was on its way up before AIDS, dictators, instability and all; the question is: would the imperial governments given countries immediate aid for AIDS?


I think they would give aid, because there would be much more pressure for a western country to give aid than a country in the 'third world'.

if you aid them they will be very pro helping nation, and they could come in handy as friends later on.

Are former african colonies better of now?

No, because the rest of the world doesn't care.

I think that most of Africa reached their all time low. Especially if we compare them to the western world. They are as poor as they were fifty years ago, but west is at least three to four times richer. Plus there are a lot more wars and conflicts now than there were in times of colonies.

I don't want to be apologetic of colonialism, colonialists gave very little to Africa. Unfortunately Africa didn't perform much better on it's own. Neocolonialism maybe? Or their fault? Or both?

I can’t think of any benefits of colonialism for native people who where basically conquered by colonial powers. They got some railroads that they basically died to build so they can get to some mines where they work like slaves. Independence is unquestionably a progressive move.

Racial problems are endemic to many post-colonial states because minority groups were often left in control when independence was granted. These minorities had been persecuted by majority populations prior to colonialism and so welcomed the colonizers and helped them subjugating the territory as a way of taking their revenge. Having proven their usefulness these minority groups were rewarded with positions of responsibility.

Africa's civil wars are not a result of old hatreds. They are a result of imposing a new political form (the nation-state) on a population that did not identify with these new states. In many new nations control of the state fell into the hands of small groups of people who naturally surrounded themselves by their friends and relatives, all part of a single ethnic group. As the state controls most of the wealth in many countries, conflicts for power and wealth inevitably took the form of ethnic wars.
Foreign or private interests can then easily explore these divisions, and drag civil wars for decades.

African countries must forge some sort of national identity shared by all the population in order to get rid of endemic civil wars. But the process of doing so requires the elimination of previous identities - something that often leads to war!

The obvious solution would be redrawing borders. But previous experiences of the sort (think central Europe post-ww1) have shown this is just another recipe for disaster.
Africa is not unique in its problems, just a lot late in facing them. And they will likely only be solved after many years, case by case.

As for the comparison with colonial times, the problem of those was that, while individuals might be better off then than now (and this is very debatable) it was a system that either absolutely denied evolution (by violence whenever necessary) or that by allowing and causing evolution unleashed ideologies that inevitably led to “independence wars”. The only viable colonialism was one that kept Africans as either “pets” or ignorant servants, and even that would be difficult to maintain. Not a humane fate for anyone.

Think how long it took to develop an English, French, or German indentity. The same thing is happening in Africa.

I think they're better off in terms of freedom and status in their own societies.

However, many countries have undergone violent revolutions and civil wars, and that is putting their quality of life down.

Overall, I'd think they're better off now.

Economically, the majority of states are worse off if you compare them to where they were in the two decades prior to independence.

Angola and Mozambique, prior to their release from Portuguese rule had developing and diversifying economies with help from Portugal. The help from Portugal, of course, also had benefits for the people of Portugal proper; the construction of railway systems enabled Western capitalists to explore and invest in the mineral-rich interior of Angola.

Mozambique, on the other hand, became somewhat of a tourist destination for Portuguese, Rhodesians, South Africans, and other interested Europeans; as many as half a million Rhodesians and South Africans alone visited Mozambique for pleasure annually.

In both cases, the "independence" (though, in some cases, they acted as proxies for the Soviet Union, communist China, and Zaire) movements were largely politically and ethnically motivated as opposed to the economic conditions that existed on the ground at that time.

I'll expand on this later, since I've got to go warm up the car. :p

It depends on the country. I'd say Botswana is definitely better off than it if it were still a colony, but it's also being hit hard by AIDS (which it would be if it were still a colony, too). Namibia also is probably better off. The blacks in South Africa are probably better off, and they are the vast majority of the country, after all. Gabon seems to be doing well, even with a president who's been in office for 40 years. A lot of countries you simply don't hear much about, which is better than hearing news of massacres and civil wars.

before the colonies they were doing awesome though, they had empires set up, and the were prospering

Yup. Colonization certainly didn't left much good to Africa. I think Africa would be better of if there was no colonization, just constructive cultural and economic contacts.

Being as it is, World and Africa alike should devote their combined strengths in a mission to help Africa get rid of wars, hunger and deseas and maintain its culture at the same time.

Angola and Mozambique, prior to their release from Portuguese rule had developing and diversifying economies with help from Portugal. The help from Portugal, of course, also had benefits for the people of Portugal proper; the construction of railway systems enabled Western capitalists to explore and invest in the mineral-rich interior of Angola.


You are wrong on all these assertions. The portuguese government, at least until Salazar fell (literally) from power in 1968, had a policy of blocking the development of its african colonies, as much as possible. Salazar lived haunted by the spectre of brazilian independence - he was very much aware that the colonies would demand, and achieve, independence as soon as they became rich enough. And so he tried to stave off the inevitable. In 1931 there were 192 schools in Angola, with a total of 17565 students (0.42% of the population). Some 20 years later, in1950, 96.4% of the population was still illiterate, and the population was divided between "assimilated", 30000, and "natives", 4037000. When colonialism as a political system was threatened in the 60's the portuguese government had some difficulty to even find "natives" (black africans, that is) that had the education necessary to be propped up as mayors or representatives to the national assembly. The Salazar regime took the approach I mentioned earlier, of trying to keep the “natives” as ignorant and servile as possible. Large investments were discouraged or simply blocked. That even happened with oil found in Angola, Timor and S. Tomé. He is supposed to have complained that the discovery of oil in Angola was a tragedy – and on that he was eventually proven right, oil fuelled the civil war later…

And if the colonies were neglected by Portugal, the portuguese people also did not benefit from them, quite the opposite. During almost all the colonial period the colonies costs to the government were greater than the revenue they produced. And the portuguese would rather emigrate to Brazil, first, and France, later, that to the african colonies. Only during the last two decades of colonialism was there a sizable movement of people to the colonies, and that with much encouragement by the government. So the people also did not benefit from colonialism. Some industrialists did, particularly during those last two decades, but by that time that was private profit bought with the blood of both portuguese and africans… the army itself eventually overthrew the government and conduced a process that liquidated the economic empires of these people. By this time the colonial by itself consumed 45% of the government’s budget, probably more unaccounted for. Corruption was increasing, with military equipment stolen, greedy contractors selling worthless equipment for large amounts (some things never change…), timber and ivory being smuggled by some “big fish” (my father saw the crates and the ivory itself, smuggled by some officers inside war planes sent to Portugal for repairs), and many of the white settlers treating africans as servants and exploring the colonies, protected by conscripts from Portugal who had no reason to fight that war.
Some (not all) of the white settlers that ran away from the colonies in 1975 had very good reasons to flee – I know of one creature in my town who, upon returning, proudly displayed photos of him whipping and sitting on top of africans…

Western colonial exploration was also detrimental to the goals of the portuguese government. Diamang, a company set up by the Portuguese government jointly with De Beers to explore diamonds in Angola, failed to contribute in any way to the development of Angola. There was no such thing as a “diamond rush” like the one that had happened in Brazil two centuries earlier. Such a rush would have brought immigrants and independent entrepreneurs to Angola, encouraged the local economy, improved the lives of the local inhabitants. Instead, large scale industrial exploration was attempted, with strict oversight and control, displacement of local population, and total disconnection from the local economy.
Other good example of industrial exploration of the colony to obtain raw materials was the cultivation of cotton. Plantations explored by Cottonang (a company owned by Belgians, even here the portuguese failed to reap the benefits of colonial exploitation) were run with what amounted to slave work, though not officially called so. The system led to a large rebellion in 1961, bloodily suppressed – and this prompted some recently formed political associations demanding the independence of Angola to adopt a strategy of armed insurrection.
Portuguese colonialism in Africa was a disaster for both portuguese and africans. At least some other european countries had the dimension and industry to profit from colonialism, not so with Portugal.


In both cases, the "independence" (though, in some cases, they acted as proxies for the Soviet Union, communist China, and Zaire) movements were largely politically and ethnically motivated as opposed to the economic conditions that existed on the ground at that time.

That is certainly true on the “politically motivated” part, and on the external influence. You forgot to mention that the zairian proxy, FNLA, was led by a guy on CIA pay (our dear backstabbing american allies...). But you are wrong on your assertion about economic conditions. Only a very small part of the population (I’d estimate some 10% of Africans, at most, plus the white colonists) was benefiting from the development that happened essentially after 1950. Many more had good reason to feel they were worst off, subject to forced labour or displaced whenever necessary, for “development”. The beginning of the armed fight in Angola in 1961, was probably hastened by the massacres in Malanje, after the rebellion by workers of Cottonang. Having a railroad built nearby will not be seen as good if the only immediate impact on your life is people showing up and forcing you to help build it!

This is a grim picture of colonialism I’m painting, but one people should know about. It is true that after independence Angola fared even worst, because it became a battleground between the US and South Africa, on one side, and the USSR on the other, with direct participation from Cuba and some chinese meddling also. Perhaps they would have fared better if independence had been delayed. An apartheid-like regime might emerge, and later fall, as it did in South Africa, leaving a more developed country to be eventually shared by all the population. But delayed independence would only be possible in the absence of the Cold War context, and under those circumstances there would not have been a prolonged civil war.

I only bothered discussing about Angola, and that only superficially. As with any recent history there are many disparate points of view, this is my own. As for other african countries each case would deserve a separate discussion, and I know something only about a few.
But I think there are a few generalizations that can be made. To start with, the sad thing with Africa is that often all the realistic outcomes are bad in some way. Had the continent not been carved up between European states it would have been exploited by individuals or companies, and the experience of the Belgian Congo shows how that could have been worse. Or it would be a patchwork of small tribal states permanently warring each other, either incapable of forming territories large and coherent enough to become nation-states, or achieving that level only after some big genocides. State colonialism also left behind built infrastructures, knowledge about the territories, reasonably stable - if arbitrary - borders, new ideas about political, economical and social organization, some well-established economic activities, and at least some educated population, even if it was a small fraction of the total. These changes sometimes were only beneficial, more often produced mixed results. But they were always necessary steps for further progress. In the absence of colonialism and considering the political and technical level of development of 19th century Africa, no one will doubt Sub-saharan Africa would have been much slower to develop. Colonialism dragged Africa (kicking and screaming!) into the 20th century.
I find colonialism condemnable particularly because countries that claimed to be “civilized” should have behaved better on the treatment of africans. But there should be no illusions that without colonialism Africa would today be some sort of idyllic paradise. State building is a difficult, long and costly process to all people caught up on it. Hopefully the rest of the world will resist the temptation of proclaiming some african countries “failed states” and moving in to turn them once again into colonies. That will only reverse and restart the whole process. I thing africans must sort things out by themselves, even though cases such as Darfur are a test to this belief.

Countries like Britain left many colonies underdeveloped so that manafacturers in britain would still be competitive, eg a completely useless railway was built so steel companies in wales could make money

@ innonimatu: Thats an interesting read, so Africa would not be better off if it was maintained under Portugal colonialism. I wonder would it do better off under kinder hands? In the South East Asia, the experience of British colonisation was much better and the general consensus i gather from history books is that it is quite benign and contributed to the regions development.

Perhaps, but certainly not because it would be kinder. British colonialism in Africa was not kinder than Portuguese colonialism. They were similar if we compare the same stages of development.

The main difference between Portuguese and british colonialism was that Portuguese colonialism was ineffective (at least until the 1940’s) whereas british colonialism was quite effective from the beginning of the 20th century. Portugal did not possess the ability to take advantage of the territories it nominally held, and in fact much of those territories were explored by foreign companies or simply neglected. It was a country that wished a large empire but could not afford one…

Also the form colonialism took varied widely even between territories controlled by the same country, depending on economic interests and local circumstances. This can be easily verified in Africa by observing how different the histories of Kenya, South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe are. South Africa is currently doing well. Zimbabwe is in worst shape than Angola or Mozambique. And the colonial war fought by the UK in Kenya was arguably more savage than those fought by Portugal.

Where british colonialism would do better was in exploring (geographically and economically) and therefore developing the territories decades earlier that Portugal did. Whether Africans would be better off or not is debatable. As I stated earlier, I believe colonialism was necessary to develop Africa fast enough for it to join the modern world. But africans who got caught by this development would probably have done without, if they had been giver the choice.
Earlier development would probably lead to earlier independence, but we don’t know how that hypothetical history would play out.

Colonialism (the 19th and 20th century colonialism), did not aim to do good for those “natives” but to explore their territories (and often enough the labour of the natives themselves) for the greater profit metropolitan businessmen and the greater glory of imperial governments (notice that the common population of the imperialistic countries did not necessarily benefit, even when they bought the tales of imperial glory they were told). Therefore the development created by colonialism was always limited - it wouldn’t do for those colonies to become independent, of for those natives to acquire political rights, they might prove difficult to control. Colonialism initially pushed Africa and its population towards a modern standard of living, but later it tried to keep it “frozen” regarding political and social right, under control. And it finally gave up when the costs of keeping this control became too great to justify.
In this all forms of European colonialism in Africa (and some colonialism elsewhere) during the 20th century were similar. Foreign governments took over the land and its population, but were unwilling or incapable of assimilate that population as part of the nation. And in time that rejected population, who in the beginning lacked a modern identity, formed its own identity, proclaimed itself a nation, and claimed its own territory. Sometimes the colonial power tried to maintain the status quo by force. Other times it officially relinquished power while maintaining control over the former territory by other means (appointing a ruler, or ensuing economic interests were preserved after formal independence). Other times it simply gave up control, after assessing that resistance to change was a waste of resources.
The only thing that can be said is that territories which attained independence against less resistance by the colonial power fared much better that those where independence was achieved by war. Many circumstances played into the decisions of giving up control by the colonial power: ideological commitment, economic dependence, strategic value, internal politics, etc. And many other into the mood of the “native” population and its demand for independence: spread of ideology, policies by the colonial power, foreign interference to gain influence, perceived strength or weakness of the current power structure… Each case must be looked into individually.

British colonialism was genrally benign in intent, if not in practice. Horribly naive though it is, the consensus was that they were helping the people in the colonies by bringing them civilisation. Of course this utterly ignored the fact that level of civilisation is not directly proportional to technological level.

I see independance a little akin to leaving your parents home in your teens or early twentys. Initially you are worse off as you have bills to pay on a likely low income, and no mum to wash your clothes and clean up after you, but it's an essential part of getting to where you need to be. Many former colonys are worse off, but they need to go through this period to get anywhere better. The United Sates was in many way worse off immediately after independance, but by going through that period they "grew-up" as a nation into a Superpower.

As for Africa at present, global capitalism is doing far more damage than imperialism ever did.

That is a really interesting analogy about post-colonial nations being like a teens first years out of the home. I think it’s more like being kicked out though. If you get into financial trouble in college (anybody remember that first phone bill?) most of us still had parents willing to help us out, former colonial powers had plenty of more important problems of their own to deal with.

As for Africa at present, global capitalism is doing far more damage than imperialism ever did.

I'm not sure about that. As I understand, many of the economic problems of some African nations stem from the fact that there isn't enough global capitalism there. For example, Kenya is stuck in poverty because of misguided protectionist policies that don't allow foreign companies to set up there and employ people. And the tariffs imposed by European and American countries ensure that African products cannot compete on an equal footing in those markets with domestic produce. For example, in 2002 the World Bank estimated that African exports would rise by nearly $2.5 billion if those agricultural tariffs were removed. If westerners really wanted to help Africa, they could simply do that and allow African producers to compete on an equal footing with everyone else, without having to give them material aid. In other words, the problem isn't too much global capitalism; the problem is that global capitalism is confined to the countries that are already wealthy and denied to the poor ones.

Countries like Britain left many colonies underdeveloped so that manafacturers in britain would still be competitive, eg a completely useless railway was built so steel companies in wales could make money

Which railway? Where?

The experience of imperialism varied widely from country to country, and one thing that makes it hard to judge is that those countries which were worst treated while colonized also tend to have done the worst since. This makes it hard to determine cause and effect.

There are a few obvious cases where imperialism was worse than any conceivable alternative, e.g. Namibia under German rule or the Congo under Leopold. Zimbabwe may well be worse off - they have a black dictator instead of a white one, and their economy, once relatively successful, is in ruins.

In general, the countries with the fewest colonies tended to treat them the worst. Portugal (partly because it had few resources to spare), Germany (look up the Herero War) and Belgium (the guys who gave us Rwanda) top the List of Shame. The French and British had patchier records, and in some areas (Algeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa) made some effort to promote development, albeit not always to the benefit of the local inhabitants. A further complication lay in the fact that the whites on the ground were often worse than the more idealistic government at home; thus, for example, local opposition blocked British plans to allow South African blacks to vote.

They were better BEFORE colonization