Europe and Africa

[warpus]

i agree with you but how can Africans begin to repair what Europeans damaged..when in fact African History is denied all over the world. The whole world still believe Africa had no civilization, thus Africa is not respected.

Look at most of the post in this thread alone, and you get my point.

There was no pan-African civilization per se. Most of sub-saharan Africa was largely uncivilized until fairly recent times.

And nobody is denying that Egypt had a large and successful civilization, or that Axum existed.. so what's your point?

 

[CartesianFart]

You mean, what was the life expectancy 400 years previous? I think you know why I won't bother answering that one. You could find much the same with British life expectancies over the same period.

Eventhough both of you have different historical narratives on the subject of English colonialism which can make any observer confused.I have to say that knowing what the life expectancy 400 years previous or just 100 years before the colonial project in India(for example on one the many)started is important to inquire to look at.Also the fact and figures of life expectancy rate of Britian paralell at the same time of India of 400 years span.

This could dispell the problem of the difference of these two claims on regarding the subject question that "Is British colonialism in India a good thing or a bad thing."

 

[warpus]

The fact that you consider thier skin colour at all when deciding if they have the right to vote tells me that that isn't right.

I was going to reply to rmsharpe but this pretty much sums it up.

 

[bloodofages]

I say this thread is total bull and is an attack on the European History, if i started a thread attacking the African people you all would be complaning about it. SO what if Europe had Conquered other nations? So has many other nations includeing african nations. Should the many tribes that were aroud Persia be blamed for not haveing a civllization like the Persians? Should we blame the Romans for bringing Roman-Greek Civ to the world? Not that is a bad thing. If they were not strong enough to defend themselves, then yes they would and did have falled to a stronger and more advance nation. If Africa was the more stronger and more advance nations they would have done the same, and took over Europe and the rest of the world. Poor old Africa, couldn't keep up with rest of the world, lets balme Europe, that would be like my neighbor down the street blaming me because he is poor, has a worse house, and no car. No Africa did not have this great civilliation, and they were not humble people would do no harm. They Have killed many more of there people then the European Empires, they sold there people in slavery and infact slavery still exsit inside some African nations! There was some good African Civllization, but not much. If Africa was a island far away from everybody else, they would BE STILL IN THE MIDDLE AGES!! This thread is nothing but a European bashing, which suprises me cause some of you are from Europe and should be PROUD of your history! Since we are also talking about racism, the blacks can be more racist then whites.

 

[amadeus]

Support liberal democratic principals in a country where they were denied the right to vote? The Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act (also passed in 1953) made it illegal to protest in support for the repeal of ANY law in S Africa, including aparthied laws, and the Suppression of Communism Act, made ANY protest of state policy illegal so whoever they were supporting was really a moot point since they couldn't protest thier lack of representation or rights.

Actually, it was the British governor-general that had the authority to declare an emergency under the Public Safety Act, not the Prime Minister. Aside from that, the South Africa of the 1970s and 1980s was radically different from the 1950s.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act was for dealing with people that committed crimes while protesting, not for protesting.

Yes, after being held for 6 years, IIRC.

Similar trials in the West could last as long as several years also. Beside that, what difference did it make? They all went back to terrorism anyway.

Nevermind that the fact that the trial was roudnly condemned by the UN and the international comunity as a gross miscarriage of justice...

Of course they did; the Afro-Asian-Eastern European bloc of countries represented the majority of votes in the UN. They also routinely condemned the U.S., Israel, and other Western-aligned nations.

I can assure you it represented A LOT to the black africans living in fear of the white government at the time. And 4 dead and 9 wounded vs 69 dead and 180 wounded in Sharpton? How can you even compare them?

I compare them because they are both statistical anomalies.

Then why not just charge them if they had so much evidence of evil deeds?

What do you think the Rivonia trial was? They were tried, convicted, and sentenced.

Nor is Botha, and certainly not to the majority of the country he presided over.

Botha is the one that relaxed and repealed many of the laws in South Africa, not the evil genius that is prescribed to him by a few left-wing "intellectuals."

Aaah. So only those that have properly assimilated into western society are worthy enough to have representation (even if they don't happen to be living in the 'west'). You'll have to pardon my use of the ....

Pardon granted.

The natives, with all respect, did not have the ability to reason like you and I.
If you were in a country where the majority of adults did not have the same kind of intelligence as you and I, would you let them vote and potentially decide your fate in that country?

If you answer "yes," let me remind you of something:

Spoiler :

(Of course, a picture of Kenyatta or Nyerere would have worked just as well, but this gets my point across.)

 

[Mathilda]

The natives, with all respect, did not have the ability to reason like you and I.
If you were in a country where the majority of adults did not have the same kind of intelligence as you and I, would you let them vote and potentially decide your fate in that country?

Are you sure you mean intelligence and not education?

 

[GinandTonic]

The natives, with all respect, did not have the ability to reason like you and I.
If you were in a country where the majority of adults did not have the same kind of intelligence as you and I, would you let them vote and potentially decide your fate in that country?

If defence of British colonialism - half my family were the colonists any they wouldnt have been caught dead using language like that.

 

[Homie]

You know he's right though, you just to wussy to say it.

 

[amadeus]

Are you sure you mean intelligence and not education?

I do mean a different kind of intelligence. However, I'm not suggesting the African is biologically inferior to the white man; I'd say that's very far from the truth.

What I am saying is that the Africans were largely not exposed to Western style thinking and I believe it would be unreasonable to expect them to make responsible decisions without first putting in place an educational and political structure that eliminates traditional tribal rivalries, respects non-native and non-majority residents, operates a government free of corruption, and a government that holds routine free and fair elections.

I want what is best for everyone in Africa, black and white. How we go about getting there is another matter; I don't believe you can instantly convert an entire continent from being undeveloped and lacking in a viable political structure into a continent full of development and liberal democratic traditions.

If defence of British colonialism - half my family were the colonists any they wouldnt have been caught dead using language like that.

Could you please enlighten me and tell me what kind of language they would have used?

 

[GinandTonic]

Could you please enlighten me and tell me what kind of language they would have used?

Much more like your last post. More along the lines of putting the structures in place, especially education and a critical press. Educate the populous so they are voting around the issues instead of tribal loyalties etc etc.

 

[Shaihulud]

In Singapore and Malaysia at least(British colonies) i think that the results of colonisation were positive, but the region was a technological backwater at that time. I think that if the Europeans country had never exploited the rest of the World, history would be very different. The money funneled out was used for many purposes, not the least was generating technology and innovation, the world now is certainly a more interesting place for all those past exploitation. I highly doubt that any democratic institution would arise in Africa without the interference of Western civilizations.

 

[Bad Player]

A debate was started in this thread, which was a bit offtopic. [http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189225&page=7, second half of page]
I want to invite it here.

I really want to hear an answer to this. Personaly I haven't made up my mind on the situation. So I ask:
- Is the current state of Africa largely a fault of European colonisers?
- Was there any chance for Afircans to catch up on the technology/society gap and build something different that ew know today?
and
- What are in your view effects of European colonialism on Africa?

An argument against that would be that British colonisation of Singapore and Hong Kong made them into 1st world countries while their neighbours lagged well behind.

 

[amadeus]

I'd argue against that, actually. While colonization may have helped these territories initially, their long-standing economic performance was because they adopted laissez-faire and investment-friendly policies.

Singapore and their average GNP per capita at independence was about a fourth of the most industrialized capitalist countries. (The Eastern bloc, on average, was 1.5 or 2 times "ahead" of Singapore.)

Also, Singapore, while opting out of traditional Western-style democratic traditions, did manage to hold routine free and fair elections in every cycle. They also have legitimate concern for all of Singapore's citizens, not just the Chinese majority.

I don't know if Hong Kong was so much a colony as it was an outpost from Maoist China. Other than labor, Hong Kong didn't have much in terms of resources to exploit.

 

[Bad Player]

Very interesting stat MT. I guess the trouble is, however, the relative affluence of the two countries, and the fact that many individuals want to have greater wealth rather than making (possibly almost inconsequential) levels of improvement in their home country. Also, I doubt if any of us would suggest health care in the UK is in such a good position that we should be actively turning away qualified health professionals who want to come and work here.

It does feel somewhat vampirish, though, doesn't it ?

Actually Australia is taking your health professionals because we don't train enough ourselves. I'm not sure if you have a surplus or you just don't value them.
Link (couldn't find original newspaper article on this)

 

[Bad Player]

@Ramius75:
There is no comparison between a genocidal maniac (Robert Mugabe) and George Bush (who is not a great leader but nowhere nearly as bad as Mugabe). The fact that you made that comparison shows a poor debating skill. Sure there are other people in the past you could compare, but Bush - not even close to Mugabe.

 

[Uiler]

I do mean a different kind of intelligence. However, I'm not suggesting the African is biologically inferior to the white man; I'd say that's very far from the truth.

What I am saying is that the Africans were largely not exposed to Western style thinking and I believe it would be unreasonable to expect them to make responsible decisions without first putting in place an educational and political structure that eliminates traditional tribal rivalries, respects non-native and non-majority residents, operates a government free of corruption, and a government that holds routine free and fair elections.

I want what is best for everyone in Africa, black and white. How we go about getting there is another matter; I don't believe you can instantly convert an entire continent from being undeveloped and lacking in a viable political structure into a continent full of development and liberal democratic traditions.


Could you please enlighten me and tell me what kind of language they would have used?

True. But why do Africans need to think "Western" anyway? Why not have them set up functional governments and ruling structures which while taking lessons from the West because it's just plain stupidity to take a "not invented here" attitude is mostly based on their own culture, desires and social structures? Hey, they might even get functional governments then! So what if it's based on a tribal structure (maybe a federation of tribes?) or if it's not democratic. If that's what works for them - as long as it's stable, can deal with the worse problems and people are left to live full productive mostly happy lives. Incidentally that is what a lot of places in Asia have done. They adapt Western institutions to suit their native culture and beliefs not the other way round. Who cares about ideology. As long as it works.

They don't need to be able to think in a Western manner to be able to make "responsible decisions". People were quite successfully ruling over large empires in "non-Western" ways for millenia - including some large African empires. Some of the modern Western processes and structures are much more efficient but that doesn't mean they need to think Western in order to have a good government.

 

[Uiler]

Oops. Posted the wrong thing.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Actually Australia is taking your health professionals because we don't train enough ourselves. I'm not sure if you have a surplus or you just don't value them.
Link (couldn't find original newspaper article on this)

We appear to have gone full circle as far as nurses are concerned. We didn’t have enough and so ‘imported’ many from Africa etc. and now, a few years later, we have trained so many of our own that we have a surplus with no jobs to go to. They are going off to work in places like Australia and Canada.

I make that: The West 3 Africa 0

 

[GinandTonic]

I don't know if Hong Kong was so much a colony as it was an outpost from Maoist China. Other than labor, Hong Kong didn't have much in terms of resources to exploit.

HK was a basically uninhabited before the Brits, bar a fishing village on the other side of the island. The Brits built HK from the ground up, and ended the piracy in the area. Much of the reson for the Chinese settlement in Kowloon bay was to trade with the British and avoid the piracy by their proximity to the colony.

Colonialism wasnt an issue of being good or bad to HK, colonialism made HK. Also both the island and the bay were ceded to the brits by the Emperor and so were never under Maoist rule. HK's only meaningful resource was and is its strategic location.

 

[Sidhe]

True. But why do Africans need to think "Western" anyway? Why not have them set up functional governments and ruling structures which while taking lessons from the West because it's just plain stupidity to take a "not invented here" attitude is mostly based on their own culture, desires and social structures? Hey, they might even get functional governments then! So what if it's based on a tribal structure (maybe a federation of tribes?) or if it's not democratic. If that's what works for them - as long as it's stable, can deal with the worse problems and people are left to live full productive mostly happy lives. Incidentally that is what a lot of places in Asia have done. They adapt Western institutions to suit their native culture and beliefs not the other way round. Who cares about ideology. As long as it works.

They don't need to be able to think in a Western manner to be able to make "responsible decisions". People were quite successfully ruling over large empires in "non-Western" ways for millenia - including some large African empires. Some of the modern Western processes and structures are much more efficient but that doesn't mean they need to think Western in order to have a good government.

You are of course talking crap, no country can make good on itself unless another Western country tells it what to do. Only by forcing a belief system on one country can any country thrive; at the end of the day everything that the West does is right, and everything the rest of the world does is wrong. We are just so right, that it's outrageous that anyone would disagree. We are perfect, God, if we ever became somewhat wrong there'd be hell to pay.