Colonists did more good to Africa than harm?

[Godwynn]

Hummmm, if you let the German colonize Russia, they would make as rich as Germany, and not the craphole it is today (well at least compared to Western Europe). I am sure your 8th grade teacher would be the first to support this, go and ask him

The world would be better off if we let the Germans colonize everything.

 

[Yeekim]

Probably most important thing for any country's growth and well-being is its overall stability (as we all know from EU III ). Africa is probably the sorry hellhole it currently is, because we've screwed them over&over in this regard.

First we rocked the boat when we started massive slave-trade. This ignited number of wars between indigenous kingdoms and disrupted former balance of forces nearly everywhere.
Then we stopped slave-trade. Powers that had emerged dominant because of this crumbled and new ones were formed.
Then we started colonizing the damn continent and divided it up once more, with no regard to former ethnic boundaries.
Then we pulled out creating independent states based on these same boundaries which make zero sense any more.
And then local governments were pitted up against each other in Cold War.

Current mess is very much result of this continuous destabilization.

 

[Formaldehyde]

uh, there was deep seated animosity among the populace from during Smith's tenure in Rhodesia. I would argue that Mugabe was the spark, not the cause, of the ensuing conflagration.

Exactly. Blaming the blacks in Zimbabwe for no longer wanting to be the willing slaves of the whites is basically preposterous. It would be comparable to trying to blame the American Indians for living in welfare conditions for centuries after they were no longer allowed to live on their own land and hunt as they did before, but were forced to live on reservations in the desert instead. It's incredibly difficulty to jump start an impoverished people without a huge amount of spare capital. Perhaps we should allow Zimbabwe residents to build casinos in the US.

Ironically, this is exactly the area where the UN could do a great deal of good. There should be special programs instituted to aid new governments such as this to help assure they don't fail after a revolution has occurred.

 

[HannibalBarka]

That said, in the Zimbabwe case, Mugabe is to be blamed for the current situation. He was a hero because he "liberted" the country some 30 years. But he completly failed the after-independance period, and did not want to give up the presidency, he became the worst kind of dictator:taking alone the wrong decisions ;-)

 

[Yeekim]

Blaming the blacks in Zimbabwe for no longer wanting to be the willing slaves of the whites.

1) When was slavery abolished in Zimbabwe again? "Slaves" is very loaded word and certainly not suitable here.
2) Nothing you said negates the fact that Zimbabwe was certainly better off under any previous administration than currently under Mugabe.

EDIT: Hell, Rhodesia became British colony in 1888. There never was "slavery" in the first place.

 

[Rossiya]

Hummmm, if you let the German colonize Russia, they would make as rich as Germany, and not the craphole it is today (well at least compared to Western Europe). I am sure your 8th grade teacher would be the first to support this, go and ask him

That's already occurred, and it didn't really work.

 

[Princeps]

well, European imperialist regimes pretty deliberately sought to rob the resources and provide "markets" for European companies by destroying and preventing the developlement of competing local manifactures and businesses. (also, sometimes the empires stole superior native techniques and patented them for the use of privileged mainland companies). The colonial economic regime also orientated the colonial economies to provide a narrow group of resources to the mainland economy, thus leaving the subjugated economies vulnerable to the effects of volatile prices. Further yet, colonial regimes rarely provided higher education for the native population, and so when they declared indipedence, it lead to a braindrain as the better educated whites fled. Some countries had only a handful of university educated indiviuals, hardly suffiecent for a modern economy to prosper.

2) Nothing you said negates the fact that Zimbabwe was certainly better off under any previous administration than currently under Mugabe.

No, Zimbabwe was not well off under previous regimes, the white rule era prosperity is almost entirely mythology. Furthermore, Zimbabwe's economic policies aren't purely the brainspawn of Mugabe, but are also influenced by western neoliberal structural adjustment, which prevented many less harmful conventional government intervensions and forced the regime to revert to poorly conceived, unconventional policies. The neoliberal policies especially hurt the revenues of the government.

Hell, Rhodesia became British colony in 1888. There never was "slavery" in the first place.

The colonies were subjugated and repressed. The opportunities provided for the native population by the foreign imposed regime were often so narrow that their state could have been characterized as slavery. Not slavery as usual, but slavery by other means.

 

[Ecofarm]

Ironically, this is exactly the area where the UN could do a great deal of good. There should be special programs instituted to aid new governments such as this to help assure they don't fail after a revolution has occurred.

How about 50k troops for Iraq? We might need some for Iran soon too.

 

[Sharwood]

How about 50k troops for Iraq? We might need some for Iran soon too.

You made the damn mess, you clean it up.

@Yeekim: There may not have been slavery, but there WAS indentured labour, which is basically the same thing, just with a prettier name.

 

[Formaldehyde]

1) When was slavery abolished in Zimbabwe again? "Slaves" is very loaded word and certainly not suitable here..

Is that right?

http://episcopal.wordpress.com/category/rhodesian/

“Rhodesia came into existence as a colonial slave state, established during the halcyon days of the British Raj. A quick glance at a modern world map, however, attests that the powerful colony would eventually assert the right of self-rule… that from the belly of Rhodesia, the independent nation of South Africa would be born.

But, as the above author did, I meant it metaphorically as well, not literally.

http://www.historicalvoices.org/pbu...1/african_activist_archive-a0a8z7-b_12419.pdf

Rhodesia (called Zimbabwe by the
Africans of that country), declared itself
independent of Britain in 1965.
The move took place after a long dispute
about majority rule in that country. The
population is 95% African and 5% white.
Most of the white settlers arrived only
i~ is cent y: Three quarters have
lived in Zimbabwe less than 20 years.
Nevertheless the Ian Smith regime which governs the country represents
only the interests of the white minority. The laws of the country are
saturated with racial discrimination against the blacks including strict
racial laws on the ownership and even the use of land.
Several laws have been passed that make it impossible to carry out
any political opposition without fear of police repression. Many political
leaders have been murdered and thousands of Zimbabweans are in
jailor in detention camps in isolated areas of the country forbidden to
communicate with anyone. Most Zimbabwean workers are excluded from membership
in labor unions and all are forbidden to go on strike; the
Marshall Servants Act provides that an African who fails to carry out the
instructions of his employer may be prosecuted criminally. Further
legislation has been passed enforcing segregation of schools and public
facilities. In 1965, as a last ditch attempt to retain its own exploitative
interests, Britain insisted that the country move toward
majority rule, but the racist regime refused. Instead, it declared itself
independent to continue its racist policies.
Rather than take the country by force, the international community
(U.N. countries) supported Britain and its weak proposal of imposing
trade restrictions with Rhodesia, "supposedly", to force the racist
regime toward majority rule and self-determination for the Zimbabwean
population. At first, the United states complied with the 'sanctions
but ln 1971, the u.s. Co gress, unde 1 adership 0f Senator Harry
Byrd of Virginia, passed a bill which permitted the U.S. to violate the
sanctions and import so called "strategic" goods from Rhodesia. Chrome
for example, was considered strategic because the other major source
was the Soviet Union. We now know that this reasoning was a misrepresentation
of the truth since the u.S. stockpile is so large that the
NEXXON(Nixon) Administration has proposed selling some of it. In addition,
u.S. importation of Russian chrome remained at the same level
the year after the u.s. broke sanctions as it had been the year before.
The continued importation of Rhodesian products by the U.S. supports
the racist, puppet regime in Rhodesia and makes the struggle for majority
rule and self-determination more difficult.
The United States has been the biggest supporter of the racist
government in Zimbabwe. U.S. imports of chrome, nickel, and asbestos
have made it possible for the all white, racist minority government to
survive.

,

2) Nothing you said negates the fact that Zimbabwe was certainly better off under any previous administration than currently under Mugabe.

Of course it was. Everybody knows that living in a brutal repressive white dicatorship where people are frequently jailed, and even murdered, if they refuse to work or shut up is clearly superior to feedom and liberty, right?

It's not often you find an apoligist for African colonialism these days. Hopefully, it will get even more rare over time.

How about 50k troops for Iraq? We might need some for Iran soon too.

Nobody is going to invade anybody anymore. That war criminal is finally out of office, and most people have finally come to their senses who the real enemy is.

But I do agree the UN would have been far preferable to leaving the illegal occupiers to further screw things up over the past 6 years. Too bad you didn't suggest that in 2003.

 

[Yeekim]

Is that right?
But, as the above author did, I meant it metaphorically as well, not literally.

I do not intend to idealize colonialism, but something called "african_activist_archive" does not sound especially free of bias/agenda... Racial segregation =/= slavery.

Of course it was. Everybody knows that living in a brutal repressive white dicatorship where people are frequently jailed, and even murdered, if they refuse to work or shut up is clearly superior to feedom and liberty, right?

I take that Bobby is just a posterboy of "freedom and liberty" when is comes to dealing with political opposition, right? Anyway, I would prefer to be jailed than die of starvation while being free - but maybe it is just me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I do not intend to idealize colonialism, but something called "african_activist_archive" does not sound especially free of bias/agenda... Racial segregation =/= slavery..

But that's just it. It was obviously far worse than mere segregation. So here you are apparently apologizing for brutal African colonialism and murder again while complaining about others' political views?

I take that Bobby is just a posterboy of "freedom and liberty" when is comes to dealing with political opposition, right?

Bobby?

Anyway, I would prefer to be jailed than die of starvation while being free - but maybe it is just me.

Well, I'll admit nobody wants to starve to death, especially me. But then again, that's not likely to happen as long as I remain free, regardless of where I happened to live - "but maybe it is just me".

Back in the old South before the Civil War, the plantation owners used to say their slaves were much better off in captivity where they would be fed and clothed. They claimed that the slaves didn't have the intelligence or the knowledge to make it on their own, despite the fact that they lived quite happily back in Africa before becoming slaves. Too bad none of them got the chance to meet Barack Obama.

My dad used to say that he never met a black man who was smart enough to be an officer in the military. I wonder what he thought when Colin Powell become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I never got a chance to ask him...

 

[Yeekim]

So here you are apparently apologizing for brutal colonialism and murder again while complaining about others' political views?

Excuse me? Zimbabwe is dead last at pretty much any human development rating or anything of that kind you can find. Saying that something was better than that is hardly apologizing.

Bobby?

Robert Mugabe.

Well, I'll admit nobody wants to starve to death, especially me. But then again, that's not likely to happen as long as I remain free, regardless of where I happened to live - but maybe it is just me.

So this leaves us with 3 options:
1) Reports of 5 million starving in Zimbabwe are wrong;and/or
2) Zimbabweans are not free; and/or
3) Zimbabweans are inferior to you.

If you are saying that were you native Zimbabwean, you'd prefer current Zimbabwe to Rhodesia, we simply need to agree to disagree. I wonder what others would prefer, however.

 

[Mowque]

Excuse me? Zimbabwe is dead last at pretty much any human development rating or anything of that kind you can find. Saying that something was better than that is hardly apologizing.

.

Just nitpick..North Korea is actually at the bottom usually. But i agree with you.

 

[Tekee]

wow you people really helped me develop an ideas about this topic and I can now formulate a good arguement!
These Zimbabwe nationalists took land away from the over represented minority, white colonists, and have it to blacks and the country became a hellhole, which before it was known as the 'Breadbasket of South Africa". It seems that Rhodesia had laws that prevented blacks from ever becoming as powerful as white colonists but at the same time the white colonists developed a prosperous country...


Someone said that they would never thought there would be a pro-colonial revisionist for history but what if the same thing happened but reversed? if whites forcefully reallocated land from blacks into white land owners :/ And leftists say they are not racist. The colonialists I am sure had a more compelling case to stay in their land than the Zimbabwe nationalists who would economically destroy their country but would gain freedom from who they felt were oppressing them.

 

[mrt144]

well, European imperialist regimes pretty deliberately sought to rob the resources and provide "markets" for European companies by destroying and preventing the developlement of competing local manifactures and businesses. (also, sometimes the empires stole superior native techniques and patented them for the use of privileged mainland companies). The colonial economic regime also orientated the colonial economies to provide a narrow group of resources to the mainland economy, thus leaving the subjugated economies vulnerable to the effects of volatile prices. Further yet, colonial regimes rarely provided higher education for the native population, and so when they declared indipedence, it lead to a braindrain as the better educated whites fled. Some countries had only a handful of university educated indiviuals, hardly suffiecent for a modern economy to prosper.



No, Zimbabwe was not well off under previous regimes, the white rule era prosperity is almost entirely mythology. Furthermore, Zimbabwe's economic policies aren't purely the brainspawn of Mugabe, but are also influenced by western neoliberal structural adjustment, which prevented many less harmful conventional government intervensions and forced the regime to revert to poorly conceived, unconventional policies. The neoliberal policies especially hurt the revenues of the government.



The colonies were subjugated and repressed. The opportunities provided for the native population by the foreign imposed regime were often so narrow that their state could have been characterized as slavery. Not slavery as usual, but slavery by other means.

But protectionism worked for Europe, right?

Who will third world countries colonize?

 

[Sharwood]

But protectionism worked for Europe, right?

Who will third world countries colonize?

You heard of reverse colonisation? They're all coming to take our jobs as we speak.

@Tekee: The major problem was that the farms and businesses were given to Mugabe's henchmen, not people who knew what they were doing. Now, stealing from minorities has worked out great for people in the past, but only when those who did the stealing knew what they were doing. Hell, Israeli settlers still take productive land off Palestinians.

 

[HannibalBarka]

That's already occurred, and it didn't really work.

Yeah, I know, because the russians fought the germans for the same absurd reasons those "filthy" zimbabwean fought the british suported white power some 30 years ago: Nationalism .
If it wasn't for those poor reasons, Russia would be and by far the richest and most advanced nation on Earth: I mean look to what the Germans made out of the swamps in the Mittle Europe, Now imagine what they would do if they have ALL the land streaching from The Rhine to The Pacific ;-)
Germany is many time richer than Russia even though it is 100 time smaller and has less population. It would be a good idea for the Russians to let Germany colonise them, it's for theeir own good !!!!

 

[Sharwood]

Yeah, I know, because the russians fought the germans for the same absurd reasons those "filthy" zimbabwean fought the british suported white power some 30 years ago: Nationalism .
If it wasn't for those poor reasons, Russia would be and by far the richest and most advanced nation on Earth: I mean look to what the Germans made out of the swamps in the Mittle Europe, Now imagine what they would do if they have ALL the land streaching from The Rhine to The Pacific ;-)
Germany is many time richer than Russia even though it is 100 time smaller and has less population. It would be a good idea for the Russians to let Germany colonise them, it's for theeir own good !!!!

Small nitpick: Britain broke off diplomatic relations with Rhodesia in I believe 1965. So it wasn't supported by Britain. It was supported by South Africa, which was usually supported by both Britain and the US.

 

[Yeekim]

Yeah, I know, because the russians fought the germans for the same absurd reasons those "filthy" zimbabwean fought the british suported white power some 30 years ago: Nationalism .
If it wasn't for those poor reasons, Russia would be and by far the richest and most advanced nation on Earth: I mean look to what the Germans made out of the swamps in the Mittle Europe, Now imagine what they would do if they have ALL the land streaching from The Rhine to The Pacific ;-)
Germany is many time richer than Russia even though it is 100 time smaller and has less population. It would be a good idea for the Russians to let Germany colonise them, it's for theeir own good !!!!

The funny thing here is that... you are building up quite a solid case here.

:runs for cover: