What could have been done to save Africa?

[Marla_Singer]

Actually, most African countries were far more prosperous as colonies than as independant nations. Zimbabwe, for instance, when it was the colony of Rhodesia was an extremely productive African state that was rapidly modernizing

Modernizing ? For what ? You just have to check a map of African railroad to see how much the colonial "modernization" couldn't give a damn' about the country and its people. Indeed, most people are living on the coasts however all railroads are parallele, getting deep into the empty lands where are all the mines and stuff. How this help the country ?

Furthermore, it's a flawed development as its a system where domestic people cannot take advantage of outside of the ruling elite which trades with the colonists. That system hasn't really changed actually after the independence. And that's the real problem. Indeed, decolonization has been only political, not economical. And all the system elaborated by the West which destroys any piece of hope for Joe average African to see his conditions getting improved in his life was and remains the main cause of instability in Africa.

However, as I've said in my post above, there is room for improvement. And many signs are getting in the right direction. We can mention for instance succesful democracies such as Senegal or Mali in Western Africa. And there are also many examples in the English-speaking Africa however such as Botswana or Kenya, however I must confess I know less about them.

 

[frekk]

Last time i check all those so called colony are doing quite badly, and are doing much better after independence. Eg. India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines. Even vietnam are doing better already.

The Asian and South American nations responded much differently to independance than Africa did. But the African nations in the 50s and early 60s were doing very well and progressing quite rapidly, it is really only in the last 30 years or so that they have started moving backwards and getting worse and worse. It's a very common misconception that Africa was poor under colonialism, because it was for most of its colonial history. But postwar colonial Africa was well on its way to prosperity. Though, as the wiki quote shows, whether it was independance, or the energy crisis, that caused it to stutter, is debatable. But I can't really agree that it was energy, because that was just as much a problem for Asia and South America.

It's simply a fact that things have gotten alot worse since the 50s. Economic history of Africa 101.

 

[Ramius75]

The Asian and South American nations responded much differently to independance than Africa did. But the African nations in the 50s and early 60s were doing very well and progressing quite rapidly, it is really only in the last 30 years or so that they have started moving backwards and getting worse and worse. It's a very common misconception that Africa was poor under colonialism, because it was for most of its colonial history. But postwar colonial Africa was well on its way to prosperity. Though, as the wiki quote shows, whether it was independance, or the energy crisis, that caused it to stutter, is debatable. But I can't really agree that it was energy, because that was just as much a problem for Asia and South America.

It's simply a fact that things have gotten alot worse since the 50s. Economic history of Africa 101.

Well, the problem actually can atrribute to culture, and which is the education.
Asian countries have a much better academic culture than the Africa countries. But the imperialist got very little to do with them, its with the local population.

The imperist at that time doesnt really concentrate on improving the life of the individual african, only to line the pockets of the whites. Thats why after the elites have move away, the general population of Africa doesnt know what to do with their countries.

So, to recolonize them isnt the solution, the solution is to build up their educational system. But something that their leaders dont want to see thou. they might feel that the educated ppl might be a threat to their power.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The imperist at that time doesnt really concentrate on improving the life of the individual african, only to line the pockets of the whites. Thats why after the elites have move away, the general population of Africa doesnt know what to do with their countries.

You should read my posts Ramius75 and I guess you'd have a better understanding of African issues.

So, to recolonize them isnt the solution, the solution is to build up their educational system. But something that their leaders dont want to see thou. they might feel that the educated ppl might be a threat to their power.

Actually that's quite wrong. Most African nations have made strong efforts to educate their people. The problem is that it's pointless to educate people if they have no opportunity to do something of their life afterwards. As usually all the economy is run by a ruling elite which is dealing directly with Western countries, the system of social promotion is locked. It doesn't even exist. As such, the only way to see anything changing consists in rebelling against the ruling elite.

 

[frekk]

Indeed, most people are living on the coasts however all railroads are parallele, getting deep into the empty lands where are all the mines and stuff. How this help the country ?

Same way it helped the USA at one point. It's just a phase in development.

Furthermore, it's a flawed development as its a system where domestic people cannot take advantage of outside of the running elite which trades with the colonists. That system hasn't really changed actually after the independence.

Yes, it has! It's gotten much, much worse. 10% of the world's poor were in Africa in the fifties and sixties - guess what it's at now? 5%? 3%? No ... FIFTY percent!!! The companies that operate in Africa aren't accountable to anyone anymore. They can arm themselves, call on the services of dictators, do whatever they like. Worse, Western nations now make demands on them such as forcing them to grow cotton for export rather than food (via the IMF) and they don't have to take any political heat for it when people starve - the little African administrations are like the Judenraat in the Warsaw Ghetto. As colonies, when things went wrong, administrations got axed at the polls in the responsible Western country, but now they are free to simply wave a finger and blame it all on tinpot dictators. They don't have to take any responsibility - and they can plunder it just as much, without any worries about the public.

However, as I've said in my post above, there is room for improvement. And many signs are getting in the right direction. We can mention for instance succesful democracies such as Senegal or Mali in Western Africa. And there are also many examples in the English-speaking Africa however I must confess I know less about them.

Things are getting worse, in general. Zimbabwe, Mali, Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone ... the list goes on. These are the worst human crises on the planet!

 

[frekk]

Well, the problem actually can atrribute to culture, and which is the education.
Asian countries have a much better academic culture than the Africa countries. But the imperialist got very little to do with them, its with the local population.

Maybe. I haven't thought about it too much, but really I'd have to say that for whatever reason, the Asian and South American countries were simply better able to take advantage of independance.

The imperist at that time doesnt really concentrate on improving the life of the individual african, only to line the pockets of the whites. Thats why after the elites have move away, the general population of Africa doesnt know what to do with their countries.

That's not really true after the war. Keynesian economic theory led to a completely different attitude towards Africa. It was still self-interest, but Keynesian theory said that the more they spent on Africa and the more they developed it, the more affluence the people there had, the more money they could make.

So, to recolonize them isnt the solution, the solution is to build up their educational system. But something that their leaders dont want to see thou. they might feel that the educated ppl might be a threat to their power.

I agree. Recolonizing is out of the question ... education is the way.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Same way it helped the USA at one point. It's just a phase in development.

Really ??!!?! The USA has known a phase where no railroad were linking the main cities of the East Coast ? I doubt that.

On the map you can see the railroads built by the glorious colonists. No need to mention that those railroads don't connect any cities... simply harbours and mines.

Yes, it has! It's gotten much, much worse. 10% of the world's poor were in Africa in the fifties and sixties - guess what it's at now? 5%? 3%? No ... FIFTY percent!!!

The reason for this is that the ruling elite remains as small when the demography was booming : Same tiny portion taking advantage of the system, but much more people living outside of the system.

The companies that operate in Africa aren't accountable to anyone anymore. They can arm themselves, call on the services of dictators, do whatever they like. Worse, Western nations now make demands on them such as forcing them to grow cotton for export rather than food (via the IMF).

That's an accurate description of the colonial system.

As colonies, when things went wrong, administrations got axed at the polls in the responsible Western country, but now they are free to simply wave a finger and blame it all on tinpot dictators. They don't have to take any responsibility - and they can plunder it just as much, without any worries about the public.

Listen to me Frekk. Economically speaking, nothing has changed before and after colonization. The main problem is about a ruling elite trading directly with a Western power who has all interests in keeping that one as stable as possible. As I've already repeated it several times, it leads to societies were social promotion is absolutely impossible : you're born in dirt, you'll die in dirt. Can you imagine the devastating effects of this ? Believing Western nations are the salvation against that system is dangerously naive. Actually, Western nations have invented that system.

Things are getting worse, in general. Zimbabwe, Mali, Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone ... the list goes on. These are the worst human crises on the planet!

What's going so bad in Mali ? It's a democracy which performs well for a land-locked country at the border of the Sahara. No, there's still much room for improvement of course, however, economical colonization is what Africa needs to get rid of. And this will certainly not be made in restoring political colonization.

 

[frekk]

Really ??!!?! The USA has known a phase where no railroad were linking the main cities of the East Coast ? I doubt that.

Sort of. Look at any map of Civil War railroads. The money for the rail barons was in lines that went inland, because there was too much competition with shipping to have lines along the coast (and also because the competitor's lines would be there). Steamboats could outcompete rail for freight or passengers because they didn't have to worry about paying fees to competitors for using their track.

Cities along the coast were linked - just like in some African countries - but the main thrust of development was lines extending inland. In Africa, that tendency was even stronger because building rail lines was so much more difficult - so only the most crucial lines, the ones extending inland, were built. Shipping could be used to connect coastal settlements, but there was no other good way to move large amounts of people or materials to and from the inland. So it was priority no. 1. They built them the same way in India etc, and I don't see them doing too badly today (in fact they make huge use of the rails still), so to blame it all on this is nonsense.

If you can only build so many miles of track, where are you going to build it ... along the coast, where you've already got ships, or inland, where you have nothing else? Look at your map, there's hardly any track built. Do you have any idea how difficult it was to lay track in Africa?

That's an accurate description of the colonial system.

No, Marla, when they were still colonies, the companies that were there were chartered Crown corporations (at least in the English colonies) and they were political dynamite for Parliament. Take the Mau Mau uprising, the British decisively crushed the rebels completely, but ended up having to grant all of their concessions and still, MacMillan had to make his "Winds of Change" speech in order to appease disturbed British voters. Now, if De Beers arms some paramilitaries to slaughter a few villages in Sierra Leone, you *might* (probably not) find a small story about some sort of activity in Africa, without de Beers even being named, on page 32 of the paper. It's become obscure.

The reason for this is that the ruling elite remains as small when the demography was booming : Same tiny portion taking advantage of the system, but much more people living outside of the system.

No. The reason is that most of these countries simply haven't developed since the late sixties or so, in fact, many of them have regressed because of civil wars.

You're just repeating the kind of propaganda that is used to justify this.

Economically speaking, nothing has changed before and after colonization.

That's simply ludicrous. Going from having only 10% of the world's poor to fully half of the entire planet's poor, is a big change, Marla. You can't spin that into "no change".

What's going so bad in Mali ?

It's one country. We're not talking about Mali, we're talking about the whole continent - of course there are exceptions. What's wrong with Barbados? Does that mean everything is peachy in the whole Carribean? Of course not.

economical colonization is what Africa needs to get rid of. And this will certainly not be made in restoring political colonization.

Africa needs investment ... just like South America and Asia needed it to grow their own "tiger economies". Even the wealthiest nations rely on investment. What Africa needs, is debt relief - it needs the IMF off its back, it needs free trade, it needs all kinds of things. African farmers could knock the socks off agricultural sectors in the developed world if we didn't subsidize the hell out of our own farmers, which their governments cannot afford to do, and so they cannot compete. That's just one little example of how they get nailed - but stopping investment would just kill them.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Sort of. Look at any map of Civil War railroads. The money for the rail barons was in lines that went inland, because there was too much competition with shipping to have lines along the coast (and also because the competitor's lines would be there). Steamboats could outcompete rail for freight or passengers because they didn't have to worry about paying fees to competitors for using their track.

Cities along the coast were linked - just like in some African countries - but the main thrust of development was lines extending inland. In Africa, that tendency was even stronger because building rail lines was so much more difficult - so only the most crucial lines, the ones extending inland, were built. Shipping could be used to connect coastal settlements, but there was no other good way to move large amounts of people or materials to and from the inland. So it was priority no. 1. They built them the same way in India etc, and I don't see them doing too badly today (in fact they make huge use of the rails still), so to blame it all on this is nonsense.

If you can only build so many miles of track, where are you going to build it ... along the coast, where you've already got ships, or inland, where you have nothing else? Look at your map, there's hardly any track built. Do you have any idea how difficult it was to lay track in Africa?

You're getting hypocritical Frekk. Saying that Africa isn't so specific to not have any inter-city railroads because there was too much competition on US inter-city railroads to make of them the most profitable railroads is turning beside the point.

No, Marla, when they were still colonies, the companies that were there were chartered Crown corporations (at least in the English colonies) and they were political dynamite for Parliament. Take the Mau Mau uprising, the British decisively crushed the rebels completely, but ended up having to grant all of their concessions and still, MacMillan had to make his "Winds of Change" speech in order to appease disturbed British voters. Now, if De Beers arms some paramilitaries to slaughter a few villages in Sierra Leone, you *might* (probably not) find a small story about some sort of activity in Africa, without de Beers even being named, on page 32 of the paper. It's become obscure.

Oh come on that's crap and you know it. Old colonial companies weren't more ethical than current international corporations. You should remember that Britain has massively sold opium to China simply to buy its tea. Opium became so generalized that it has totally destructured China for half a century.

No. The reason is that most of these countries simply haven't developed since the late sixties or so, in fact, many of them have regressed because of civil wars.

You're just repeating the kind of propaganda that is used to justify this.

And those countries haven't developped because an economical system trusted by a ruling elite trading with western corporation doesn't let any room for development. I'm not repeating any propaganda. I'm simply saying the obvious truth. Why democracy is one of the best frame for capitalism ? Well simply because democracy is about an open society, and an open society is necessary to economical development. I'm not excusing anyone, I just say things which sound rather obvious.

That's simply ludicrous. Going from having only 10% of the world's poor to fully half of the entire planet's poor, is a big change, Marla. You can't spin that into "no change".

And population is also ten times bigger for most countries. You haven't realized this, have you ?

The difference in Africa before the 60's and after the 60's isn't about a change in the economical system, the difference is purely about political stability. In the colonial system, the economics worked exactly the same way as today, however it was harder to rebel against the western colonists. As such, there was more stability and less civil wars. But it's not because there were less civil wars that the economical system didn't have the same flaws as currently.

It's one country. We're not talking about Mali, we're talking about the whole continent - of course there are exceptions. What's wrong with Barbados? Does that mean everything is peachy in the whole Carribean? Of course not.

I'm just taking Mali (or Kenya, Botswana, Senegal, Ghana, ...) as an example of what works in Africa. And if it works, it's because those countries succeeded to reach a stable democratic system leading to a society getting a bit more open. Of course it's not all pink. The main structural problem remains. Those countries are still unable to collect taxes and enforce law... something which is necessary for development. However, I see them as the right path Africa should take for the future.

Africa needs investment ... just like South America and Asia needed it to grow their own "tiger economies". Even the wealthiest nations rely on investment. What Africa needs, is debt relief - it needs the IMF off its back, it needs free trade, it needs all kinds of things. African farmers could knock the socks off agricultural sectors in the developed world if we didn't subsidize the hell out of our own farmers, which their governments cannot afford to do, and so they cannot compete. That's just one little example of how they get nailed - but stopping investment would just kill them.

All those are superficial problems, not root problems. How can there be investment in a country where laws aren't enforced and the government cannot finance itself ? That's even more obvious about African debts issue. And about Western agriculture subsidies, that proves simply once again how much the Western world isn't the one we should trust for Africa to devellop.

 

[luiz]

Imperialist powers should have never interfered (and enslaved africans) in the first place. They also should not have drawn borders in a way to keep african nations down.

Nowadays the best they can do (and also the least they should do, considering the past) is to totally get rid of subsidies and trade tariffs. That should give Africa the momentum it needs to grow on it's on... of course, the very nations who screwed Africa up are unwilling to open their markets.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

End all 'aid' to Africa immediately (except for emergency assistance), and open up our markets to their goods. Thats all that needs or should be done. All men are created equal. Just like we solve our own problems, so can they eventually if we stop interfering and trying to do it for them.

 

[a space oddity]

End all 'aid' to Africa immediately (except for emergency assistance), and open up our markets to their goods. Thats all that needs or should be done. All men are created equal. Just like we solve our own problems, so can they eventually if we stop interfering and trying to do it for them.

I agree, and I think most people know it's true. The sad thing is that we (as a whole) don't care enough to make the nescessary changes. It would be political suicide, so I can't see it happening in the near future.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I agree, and I think most people know it's true. The sad thing is that we (as a whole) don't care enough to make the nescessary changes. It would be political suicide, so I can't see it happening in the near future.

You mean opening our markets? True, but I think it can be done gradually over a number of years, without too much political fallout (or at least managable fallout). Even if that is harder to do and takes longer, we should still end all aid immediately. Its basically welfare on a continental scale. I personally find it offensive and embarrassing, and Im sure many Africans do too. Particularly when you take into account that very little of the aid actually gets to the people who need it, and instead ends up in the pockets of corrupt government officials.

Does anyone know what the total amount of 'aid' poured into Africa by the West since the end of the colonial period is? Must be hundreds of billions. Not much good has come of it, obviously.

 

[The Yankee]

Actually, most African countries were far more prosperous as colonies than as independant nations. Zimbabwe, for instance, when it was the colony of Rhodesia was an extremely productive African state that was rapidly modernizing; now it is, well, Mugabe's playground, a country that can only barely feed itself. Prior to the independance movement, in the Fifties, the gap between Africans and the developed world was much narrower than it is now. Partly this is because we have advanced considerably since then, but we have done so at the expense of Africa in some ways. That's the thing people don't really realize is that while the late colonial period was still quite repressive (though not nearly so repressive as many current African regimes), it was also somewhat accountable to "liberal" voters in the colonialist nations themselves, who would turn out to defeat governments that got too harsh in the colonies. As things stand now, oil, gold, and diamond companies literally rape Africa, and they aren't accountable to any public anywhere. Independance has been really bad for Africa.

Productive for whom? The population at large? I doubt that. If it were, then there'd be a real, sustainable, fluid middle class. But there isn't. It's been several percent at the top and the rest at the bottom. It's a big reason why a country can fail economically.

Then those at the top raise their own private armies and they fight each other over the lucrative resources...this is in addition to tribal and ethnic clashing. You can't sustain an economy while armies are busy trampling over everything.

 

[The Yankee]

End all 'aid' to Africa immediately (except for emergency assistance), and open up our markets to their goods. Thats all that needs or should be done. All men are created equal. Just like we solve our own problems, so can they eventually if we stop interfering and trying to do it for them.

And also at least ween off our subsidies to farmers that keep our export prices artifically low.

 

[The Yankee]

You mean opening our markets? True, but I think it can be done gradually over a number of years, without too much political fallout (or at least managable fallout). Even if that is harder to do and takes longer, we should still end all aid immediately. Its basically welfare on a continental scale. I personally find it offensive and embarrassing, and Im sure many Africans do too. Particularly when you take into account that very little of the aid actually gets to the people who need it, and instead ends up in the pockets of corrupt government officials.

Does anyone know what the total amount of 'aid' poured into Africa by the West since the end of the colonial period is? Must be hundreds of billions. Not much good has come of it, obviously.

Which was the reasoning behind Bush's "Millenium Challenge." Though, I would imagine an autocrat would rather hold onto power and do with some less dollars than open up and try to grab the money for himself afterward.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And also at least ween off our subsidies to farmers that keep our export prices artifically low.

Yeah, and I think thats the general trend these days anyway. Or at least theres general acknowledgment that it needs to be done.

 

[The Yankee]

Yeah, and I think thats the general trend these days anyway. Or at least theres general acknowledgment that it needs to be done.

Wow, "acknowledgment." That amounts to a lot. I hear it everywhere from local to state to national government and things stay the same or get worse.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well governments are like aircraft carriers. Theres a definite lag between the time the Captain decides to turn around, and the thing actually turns around.

 

[The Yankee]

It'd be interesting to see what kind of subsidies the US hands out. I know Europe has their own and that's more of the same. Maybe I'll try to dig it up myself.