innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
rmsharpe said: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 governments 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.
rmsharpe said: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 (Id 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 Im 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.