Colonists did more good to Africa than harm?

[Sharwood]

This I think is one of the bigger reasons that Zimbabwe is where it is today.

Colonialism and white rule when the country was Rhodesia has laid the foundation for the systemic problems the country has faced in the last 29 years. Mugabe has been the catalyst for making those systemic problems into the mess that is Zimbabwe today. In a sense, if the injustices and imbalances of colonialism/white rule were not in place, the tyrant that is Mugabe would not have been possible.

The real problem, however, is Mugabe himself. Colonialism is the enabler that allowed Mugabe to thrive.

Interesting anecdote: Mugabe was somewhat reasonable and controlled when he was married to his first wife. After her death (and marrying his second wife) he has become much more controlling and authoritarian. Not to say he was a saint the whole time, but it is interesting how things change.

I don’t have any references to this, other than personal experience. I lived in Zimbabwe when I was a kid (in the mid 1980’s) as my father worked for USAID. Mugabe’s first wife acting as a moderating influence is one of my father’s personal perspectives on Mugabe.

Well, Shaka did go nuts after his mother died. So maybe there's some weird thing about Southern African dictators and their womenfolk?

I wish there was a map of tribal borders before European arrival, or at least prior to South Africa sticking people where they felt like. The Zulus used to control a significantly larger territory, though most of that wasn't actually Zulu land, it just recognised Shaka or Cetshwayo as king.

 

[mrt144]

I hate you Europe.

 

[Winner]

I recently learned that Zimbabwe had an inflation rate of 89.7 sextillion percent (Is this even possible :O), prices double roughly once per minute.
And it was caused because of the land transfers of the early 2000's where they took land away from white minorities and gave it to black majority. Suddenly the "Breadbasket of South Africa" could not feed its population and was in famine for so many years.

Anybody who's not entirely blinded with political correctness can see that the crisis in Zimbabwe was caused by Mugabes racist policies against the white farmers, who were the backbone of the whole economy. The more ethnic cleansing he commits against them, the worse is the situation.

Of course you can't say that because Mugabe is black and an African, so he can do whatever he wants and the rest of the world shuts up in fear of being called "racist" or "imperialist".

I hate you Europe.

Yes, because it's our continents fault that the Africans can't get rid of crazy dictators 40-50 years after they became independent.

Get a grip.

 

[Winner]

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.

It was a sorry hellhole long before Europeans came.

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.

Arabs had been conducting massive slave-trade long before Europeans started buying slaves. It's not anybody's fault because we can't judge the past by our present-day standards. Slavery was common in the past. Africa has always been poor and undeveloped so people were often the only commodity it could export. Note that the Africans were selling their own people, all the Europeans had to do was to stay on the coast for a while and wait for African slave traders.

Then we stopped slave-trade. Powers that had emerged dominant because of this crumbled and new ones were formed.

Now I see that ending slavery was a bad thing

Then we started colonizing the damn continent and divided it up once more, with no regard to former ethnic boundaries.

There is no way how to divide the place with regard to ethnic boundaries, you'd have 1000 provinces. Not that the Europeans tried to do that, again - we're talking about the 19th century. Colonizing nations believed it was an uncivilized land ripe for taking.

Then we pulled out creating independent states based on these same boundaries which make zero sense any more.

Leaving Africa prematurely was the biggest mistake of all. Thank the Americans and the Soviets for that.

And then local governments were pitted up against each other in Cold War.

That's correct.

Current mess is very much result of this continuous destabilization.

I'd say that the current mess was caused by hurried decolonization.

Just to be clear on one thing: Africa had ZERO chance to stay independent. It was too primitive to be left alone, if the Europeans didn't do it, somebody else would. It's what happens when a strong advanced culture meets weaker and more primitive one.

 

[Agent327]

It was a sorry hellhole long before Europeans came.

How so?

Leaving Africa prematurely was the biggest mistake of all. Thank the Americans and the Soviets for that.

Leaving Africa prematurely? After Latin America was decolonized early 19th century, the European powers decided it was time to try their luck in Africa... And most African nations had independence movements fighting for freedom. I'd say it was long overdue.

I'd say that the current mess was caused by hurried decolonization.

You can say it, but can you prove it?

 

[Winner]

How so?

Africa has always been generally underdeveloped compared to the centers of civilization in the Middle East, Europe, India or East Asia.

Leaving Africa prematurely? After Latin America was decolonized early 19th century, the European powers decided it was time to try their luck in Africa... And most African nations had independence movements fighting for freedom. I'd say it was long overdue.

Nonsense. Africa was in no shape for independence, which is why is it in such a mess right now. There was no real middle class to become the basis of democracy, the elites were too few to provide a stable and sane leadership, the infrastructure wasn't developed enough, the people were not educated enough, the economy was not diversified enough etc. etc. etc.

If Europeans had a chance to continue in rather sane policies that started to replace the previous ones after WW2, they might have helped to prepare Africa for independence much better.

Independence movements - oh right. Funded by Soviets or Americans to serve their interests. Give me a break.

You can say it, but can you prove it?

The proof is what we see and hear about Africa every day.

 

[Verbose]

Arabs had been conducting massive slave-trade long before Europeans started buying slaves. It's not anybody's fault because we can't judge the past by our present-day standards. Slavery was common in the past. Africa has always been poor and undeveloped so people were often the only commodity it could export. Note that the Africans were selling their own people, all the Europeans had to do was to stay on the coast for a while and wait for African slave traders.

The scale was anything but massive. The Arab world simply didn't have the economic chops and that hard-to-satisfy humungous demand for labour that the Europeans acquired along with the colonies in the New World. The economic realities made for literally a world of difference between pre-19th c- Arab slave trade and the European variety. And in the 19th c. it was again either Europeans or in particular the Egyptian bid to compete like one of the European powers, that opened in particular Central Africa up for the slave trade. Egypt pushing deep into the Sudan was financed by it, and that opened up Africa for Europe as well.

Now I see that ending slavery was a bad thing

Considering forced labour was pretty standard colonial fare it can be argued it just mutated. Congo is the big case-in-point, where "supression of the slave trade" was the Great and Good Humanitarian project of forcibly cutting out the competition of Arab/African slave traders, only to have slavery administratively reimposed through forced labour.

There is no way how to divide the place with regard to ethnic boundaries, you'd have 1000 provinces. Not that the Europeans tried to do that, again - we're talking about the 19th century. Colonizing nations believed it was an uncivilized land ripe for taking.

Except where the European colonial powers actually ran into organised African polities, they did their damndest to comprehensively destroy them. For example, the "Azande Federation" is a classic among British social anthropologists, who even went as far as seeing parallels between the "Pax Britannica" and a "Pax Zandica". The Azande federation ruled millions, controlled a territory the size of France, and was perfectly capable of literally stopping the slavers dead at their borders. Where are they today? Well, the reason the southern border between the Sudan, Congo Kinshasa, and Congo Btazzaville lookes like it does is in order to break the Azande polity apart so that it could no longer resist colonial annexation.

There would be a lot of these polities, but far from thousands, non-ethnic, "imperial" in their own right, but quite perceptibly African.

Just to be clear on one thing: Africa had ZERO chance to stay independent. It was too primitive to be left alone, if the Europeans didn't do it, somebody else would. It's what happens when a strong advanced culture meets weaker and more primitive one.

Well, obviously there was a logic to European behaviour at the time which made it pretty much unavoidable. Pity it caused massive misery while not even being profitable. It's kind of a special perversion to something operating like that. It wasn't even worth it in the crassest financial terms, never mind the human costs.

 

[Yeekim]

It was a sorry hellhole long before Europeans came.

I beg to differ. African nations were technologically backwards, yes, but this does not mean there were not entirely functional, sophisticated societies or centers of learning and scholarship. Great Zimbabwe and Timbuktu spring to mind, for instance.

Arabs had been conducting massive slave-trade long before Europeans started buying slaves. It's not anybody's fault because we can't judge the past by our present-day standards. Slavery was common in the past. Africa has always been poor and undeveloped so people were often the only commodity it could export. Note that the Africans were selling their own people, all the Europeans had to do was to stay on the coast for a while and wait for African slave traders.

Well, Europeans gave this business a whole new dimension. And most importantly, they encouraged this by selling contemporary firearms. Also, Africa has always had plenty of valuable raw materias to export, besides slaves.

Now I see that ending slavery was a bad thing

There is no way how to divide the place with regard to ethnic boundaries, you'd have 1000 provinces. Not that the Europeans tried to do that, again - we're talking about the 19th century. Colonizing nations believed it was an uncivilized land ripe for taking.

Look, I am not saying we should roll around in dust crying and whip ourselves in penance. Especially since neither Bohemia nor Estonia have never been much into colonizing other continents.
I am just saying how things came to be what they are today. And Europe clearly has lots of responsibility in this.

Yes, because it's our continents fault that the Africans can't get rid of crazy dictators 40-50 years after they became independent.

Africa was in no shape for independence, which is why is it in such a mess right now. There was no real middle class to become the basis of democracy, the elites were too few to provide a stable and sane leadership, the infrastructure wasn't developed enough, the people were not educated enough, the economy was not diversified enough etc. etc. etc.

You pretty much gave correct answer to yourself here.

 

[Masada]

Colonialism and white rule when the country was Rhodesia has laid the foundation for the systemic problems the country has faced in the last 29 years. Mugabe has been the catalyst for making those systemic problems into the mess that is Zimbabwe today. In a sense, if the injustices and imbalances of colonialism/white rule were not in place, the tyrant that is Mugabe would not have been possible.

Much as I hate to say it: the Zulu Empire was every bit as nasty as the European Empires which succeed it. Tribal conflicts were endemic, bloody and typically went the way of the tribe with the most European weapons and woe betide those on the receiving end. You fought for keeps.

In any case the Matabele Massacres were as much a product of pre-existing tribal tensions that Mugabe fanned the fires to and used cynically to eliminate his main opposition. They would have existed even removing Europeans from the scene.

Rhodesia did lay the foundations of some of the problems, the land issue was certainly a major issue, but Mugabe did not need to go about it the way he did later on. He initially purchased white land and then moved on compensated compulsory acquisition, then moved onto outright theft and appropriation. He then cynically used the land he acquired to increase his own personal power by sticking his supporters on it and went as far as disenfranchising existing non-loyalist blacks.

Interesting anecdote: Mugabe was somewhat reasonable and controlled when he was married to his first wife. After her death (and marrying his second wife) he has become much more controlling and authoritarian. Not to say he was a saint the whole time, but it is interesting how things change.

I would frame it this way, he didn't need to be authoritarian or outright violent for much of his first wives life. His economic policies began to go pear shaped around the time she died. The government began running chronically short on foriegn funds and economic progress began to slip around 1990. He reaped the rewards of some mismanagement issues in 1991-92 and began to get desperate, you can see a pattern in his decisions, as he each measure he tried failed he was forced to go just that little bit further, and on and on. Sally died in 1992 after alot of the initial actions had failed to restore the economy, he then started getting desperate (but this had all been building for at least a decade, the problems stemming from absorbing all the educated folk he was turning out of his education system were known long before Sally's death).

In the general stakes, the Matabeleland Massacres by ZANU Cadres of at least 20,000 Matabele occurred in 1987. Even then the economy was tanking which was mostly corruption related (some seriously schonky deals went through) often the work of close confidants of Mugabe. He also gerrymandered an election, a few prominent political opponents 'died' or were driven into exile, he purged the civil service of most whites, began compulsorily acquiring white land and tended to take a recourse to violence whenever it was politically expedient. This was all before Sally's death.

Short answer: It's probably coincidence, but some scholars tend to think that Sally was a steadying hand at times... she failed manifestly in restraining him in Matabeleland and in a systematic destruction in detail of Democracy.

I don’t have any references to this, other than personal experience. I lived in Zimbabwe when I was a kid (in the mid 1980’s) as my father worked for USAID. Mugabe’s first wife acting as a moderating influence is one of my father’s personal perspectives on Mugabe.

I'd like it to be true... but I honestly don't believe it, he had violent periods where he crushed his major opposition and murdered twenty thousand people... followed by periods of relative calm... followed by another round of brutality et al (even when Sally was alive... call it selective restraint... or no restraint at all).

 

[HannibalBarka]

But Germany and Russia are both Europeans of comparable cultural and technological prowess,

You're joking, right? Compare a BMW to ........................ I don't even know what is the kind of car Russia produce if any
And again look to the amount of riches Germans are producing from the 250k Km2 swamps of Mittle Europa, and comapre that to the riches Russians are producing from 17 000 000 km2. Germans are definetly superiors to Russian (to use your vacabulary). Without raw material Russia won't be much richer than Zimbabwe

if there was an African nation that could resist Europeans then it was for its own good, Russia always resisted Germany and always *WON* so Russia is Germany's superior and they did what was best. Hell even all places conquered by Napoleon got to keep their Napoleonic codes instead of whatever barbarity these countries had instead... Might makes Right?

Resisting an invading army does not in any way mean that the invaded is superior or even equal of the Invader. The Mongols and the Hun won againt nations far superior to them. Vietnam won the war against the mighty US, nonone is fool enough to suggest they are their superior technologically. Oh, and if I follow you fool resoning, you should bow before Afghnistan
Russia won against Napolean and Germany thanks to mother nature, not because they were "superior" to France or Germany

Britain and the productive white farmers were the superiors to the indigenous populations and when these superior farmers were forced out of Zimbabwe the country fell to such unbelievable disaster,
I don't care much for having endless quote battles because I never read them anyways and if you are a fan of my Grade 8 teachers politically incorrect classes then be my chemisty teacher says that we do not need to worry about those weird numbers that end in google or sextillion but Zimbabwe's hyperinflation is at... 89.7 sextillion :O My teachers would be shocked to see a number like that in real life How can this be anyone else's fault except for the "liberal yeah-hoos" who think that all oppression is from the white man. It is an anti-racist story with a delicious twist.

Zimbabwe problems today are defintly Mugabe's fault, no doubt about it and it would be stupid to say otherwise. Now suggesting that because Zimbabwe is in trouble, Africa should be recolonized, is plain stupid because
1. Africa under colonial rule wasn't a better place
2. Not all Africa today is like Zimbabwe. Namibia and Botswana near by for example are doing decently good and are on the right path.

 

[Winner]

I beg to differ. African nations were technologically backwards, yes, but this does not mean there were not entirely functional, sophisticated societies or centers of learning and scholarship. Great Zimbabwe
and Timbuktu spring to mind, for instance.

That's almost like saying that the Native American tribes were advanced. Some of them were compared to other tribes in the region.

Any notion of their high level of development falls apart when we compare their achievments to the Old World standards. The same applies to sub-Saharan Africa - most of it was centuries, sometimes millenia behind most of Eurasian cultures.

Well, Europeans gave this business a whole new dimension. And most importantly, they encouraged this by selling contemporary firearms. Also, Africa has always had plenty of valuable raw materias to export, besides slaves.

Raw materials, that's correct. When the Europeans found out that the Africans were too primitive to be able to extract the resources with required efficiency, they simply took Africa and did it themselves (not literally, of course, but they built the necessary infrastructure which allowed them to exploit African resources with much greater efficiency).

About the slave trade - I read somewhere that the Arab traders had sold at least the same number of African slaves as the Europeans. Not surprising, they were in this business for a much longer period of time. They had also colonized the East African coast centuries before the Europeans set foot on African soil.

Look, I am not saying we should roll around in dust crying and whip ourselves in penance. Especially since neither Bohemia nor Estonia have never been much into colonizing other continents.

Which reminds me that after WW1, there was some plan to give Czechoslovakia some small colony in Africa. We were *this* close to being a colonial power!

I am just saying how things came to be what they are today. And Europe clearly has lots of responsibility in this.

Sure it does, but I refuse to be held responsible for things done centuries ago by entirely different people under different circumstances. Africans seem to love EU money, but they can't stop using the "blame the colonialists for everything!" argument.

It's like if whole of post-Communist Europe had descended into chaos after 1989, with one dictator replacing another, constant civil wars, 3% annual population growth, 20% AIDS infection rate, 100% corrupted governments etc. and done nothing to improve itself, only blaming the Soviets for everything and expecting the rest of the world to help it.

Africans can either start behaving sensibly and in that case, I am all for helping them, or they can continue in what they're doing now, in which case I believe we should stop helping them at all. They have had plenty of time to get over colonialism, they can't blame it for everything, not forever.

You pretty much gave correct answer to yourself here.

What differs are the conclusions

In short, I believe that colonialism was inevitable, and that it wasn't all bad. It could have been much worse - imagine a 16th century Spanish-style conquest and exploitation in Africa. Most of it would now be populated by a mixed Euro-African race, 95% of native languages would be extinct, local cultures completely replaced by European cultures etc.

Given the circumstances, it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. The problem was that when Europeans finally realized that they needed to start treating the colonies better, they were forced by the superpowers
to give them independence, thus wasting the opportunity to develop African nations to a level which would make future independence much easier to handle.

 

[Sharwood]

A few points directed at a few different people here, so I'm not bothering to quote.

Many African societies were quite advanced, and slavery was far from the only thing they traded. The Tuareg have been trading in gold since pre-Roman times. Sure, they weren't as technologically advanced as the Europeans, but many of them still can't be considered primitive societies by any but the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination. Ethiopia, the Zulus, Mali, none of these were primitive.

And Masada, I think you'll find that, except during Shaka's rule, the Zulus were very peaceful. Shaka was a butcher and wannabe totalitarian to compare with the worst of the twentieth centurey - there are revisionists who claim otherwise; those revisionists are wrong - but Dingiswayo, Cetshwayo and the few other kings were basically the heads of relatively peaceful empires.

Zulus - and most Africans, even to this day - sucked at using European weapons, victory almost always went to the guys using Dingiswayo's "fighting bull buffalo" formation with the most skill. Prior to Shaka most combats were ceremonial, with very little actual death, like the Aztecs but without the human sacrifices.

Rushing decolonisation was a mistake, but one can hardly blame the US and USSR for all of it. They basically took advantage of a process that was already ongoing. If you want to blame anyone Winner, blame Germany for bankrupting France and Britain in WWII.

Of course, you can blame those idiotic post-colonial regimes for Papua New Guinea's current state, as the Papuans actually didn't want independence from Australia, but Australia was forced to give it to them in order to stop the complaints about us being "evil White colonialists." Neither the US or USSR were involved in that situation either. Nor really was China.

And certain places in Africa had very good chances of staying independent. Ethiopia did, until Italy invaded, and the Zulu Kingdom maintained its independence from both the British and the Boers for quite some time. It's the only case I know of of a state actually forming in Africa while colonisation was proceeding with speed. It was conquered by a governor seeking military glory - or rather, by his replacement seeking to fix his mess - not for any resources the British wanted or because it was incapable of defending itself. Hell, it's own power worked against it, as many subject peoples defected to the British side to fight it.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Which reminds me that after WW1, there was some plan to give Czechoslovakia some small colony in Africa. We were *this* close to being a colonial power!

Haha, we were ounce a colonial empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Island_(The_Gambia)

You guys could never accomplish that.

Rushing decolonisation was a mistake, but one can hardly blame the US and USSR for all of it. They basically took advantage of a process that was already ongoing. If you want to blame anyone Winner, blame Germany for bankrupting France and Britain in WWII.

What difference would it make if Germany didn't bankrupt France and Britain? The US and Russia were still fairly rich countries supporting rebels in Africa.

 

[Sharwood]

Haha, we were ounce a colonial empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Island_(The_Gambia)

You guys could never accomplish that.



What difference would it make if Germany didn't bankrupt France and Britain? The US and Russia were still fairly rich countries supporting rebels in Africa.

You don't seriously think that Britain and France couldn't have effed up any rebellious group - outside of India - if they were still the two greatest nations on Earth do you? The US supported rebels in several countries - notably Tibet and Eastern Europe - and accomplished nothing, as they were confronted with enemies that still had a viable power base in the area.

 

[philippe]

ah, having your own personal colony to get the cash to buy Parisian hookers and petomans is so rewarding, even if it costs the locals an arm and a leg.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yeah, Leopold II was a POS. To be fair, his Congo antics, when they were revealed, were considered morally wrong even by the standarts of behavior of other colonial empires.

 

[mrt144]

Yes, because it's our continents fault that the Africans can't get rid of crazy dictators 40-50 years after they became independent.

Get a grip.

Defensive much?

 

[RedRalph]

You don't seriously think that Britain and France couldn't have effed up any rebellious group - outside of India - if they were still the two greatest nations on Earth do you? The US supported rebels in several countries - notably Tibet and Eastern Europe - and accomplished nothing, as they were confronted with enemies that still had a viable power base in the area.

And outside of Ireland. Dont forget.

 

[Agent327]

Africa has always been generally underdeveloped compared to the centers of civilization in the Middle East, Europe, India or East Asia.

Hence it was called the Dark Continent? (I wouldn't say "always" though, considering mankind travelled out of Africa to colonize the world.)

Nonsense. Africa was in no shape for independence, which is why is it in such a mess right now. There was no real middle class to become the basis of democracy, the elites were too few to provide a stable and sane leadership, the infrastructure wasn't developed enough, the people were not educated enough, the economy was not diversified enough etc. etc. etc.

If Europeans had a chance to continue in rather sane policies that started to replace the previous ones after WW2, they might have helped to prepare Africa for independence much better.

That may be true, but since when are independence movements willing to wait for when their masters think their nations are ready for independence?

Independence movements - oh right. Funded by Soviets or Americans to serve their interests. Give me a break.

You seem to have little knowledge of the various independence movements that played a part in the decolonization of Africa. (And how these movements get funded is hardly relevant to their goal.

The proof is what we see and hear about Africa every day.

 

[Sharwood]

And outside of Ireland. Dont forget.

Point taken. Though a few more Black and Tans would have put you in your place.