Colonial legacy: Africa's problem today?

[bushbush]

well, Carach said people like me should be banned because I believe Africa's problems (poverty, civil war, dictatorship, ethnic conflict) can be attributed towards the colonial legacy left by Britain and other European powers.

well, I think I will elaborate on my point in this thread a little bit.

1. Artificial borders
The artificial boundaries created by colonial rulers as they ruled and finally left Africa had the effect of bringing together many different ethnic people within a nation that did not reflect, nor have (in such a short period of time) the ability to accommodate or provide for, the cultural and ethnic diversity. It's no surprising that racial tensions are still very high among various African people being forced into one state.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...rica/Intro.asp

2. Poor political institutions
Institutions governing colonies in Africa were often supported by a combination of white colonists and local elites, with the backing of military power. The government had little support of the local people. Even if democracy was set up in some parts, there were no middle class to support it. Once the white colonists left, the government often collapsed outright, leaving room for military strongmen and opened up room for civil war.

3. Imbalanced economic structure with poor infrastructure
In Africa, it's fair to say the colonial system was particularly focused on exploiting and extracting the continent's natural resources - and infrastructure was built to export the copper, timber, oil, gold or whatever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4626437.stm

The colonists weren't interested in developing a balanced economy with an educated labor. The result today in Africa is that they could only sell their cheap natural resources to buy expensive manufactured products, having difficulty competing in the world market.



so what do you think? are Africa's problems due to blackmen's stupidity? or its colonial past?

[Kiljan Arslan]

also I'd blam leaving to fast.

[Exarch]

your first point would be the primary factor in why africa is so...anarchic today

[Romulus_A]

Well I doubt know if you can attribute everything for Europe, but there's no doubt that Europe left a huge impact on the culture of Africa.

One thing I think is problem is how isolated Africa is from the world, it gives warlords and dictators ample space to wreak havoc on the country with little to none interference from the west.

[mrmouth]

You know, I think the colonial history of a good portion of countries haunt them, and in many ways, you cant blame anyone else but their colonial masters.

All in all though, its a victim complex, and it can be seen in Africa, the middle east, and central Asia. No matter how valid their grievances are, they do themselves, and the world no favors in keeping them alive.

[Sidmen]

1. Artificial borders
The artificial boundaries created by colonial rulers as they ruled and finally left Africa had the effect of bringing together many different ethnic people within a nation that did not reflect, nor have (in such a short period of time) the ability to accommodate or provide for, the cultural and ethnic diversity. It's no surprising that racial tensions are still very high among various African people being forced into one state.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...rica/Intro.asp

I blame the Africans for this. Immediately after they gained their independence, they had the ability and right to divide themselves into more 'logical' countries. They didn't, and the larger ethnic groups have used force to keep the others in line. Creating the chaos.

2. Poor political institutions
Institutions governing colonies in Africa were often supported by a combination of white colonists and local elites, with the backing of military power. The government had little support of the local people. Even if democracy was set up in some parts, there were no middle class to support it. Once the white colonists left, the government often collapsed outright, leaving room for military strongmen and opened up room for civil war.

After the colonials left, they had no control over the government. Weather it collapsed and got taken over by a military dictator isn't their fault. You cannot 'create' a democracy on foreign soil, they must do it themselves.

3. Imbalanced economic structure with poor infrastructure
In Africa, it's fair to say the colonial system was particularly focused on exploiting and extracting the continent's natural resources - and infrastructure was built to export the copper, timber, oil, gold or whatever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4626437.stm

The colonists weren't interested in developing a balanced economy with an educated labor. The result today in Africa is that they could only sell their cheap natural resources to buy expensive manufactured products, having difficulty competing in the world market.

I'd like to point out that pre-colonial Africa had a worse economy than post-Colonial. Blaming the colonials for advancing Africa's economic development by 300 years, and not 500 years is stupid.

[bushbush]

I blame the Africans for this. Immediately after they gained their independence, they had the ability and right to divide themselves into more 'logical' countries. They didn't, and the larger ethnic groups have used force to keep the others in line. Creating the chaos.

they had the opportunity?

when? were they offered a border making convention? LOL?

After the colonials left, they had no control over the government. Weather it collapsed and got taken over by a military dictator isn't their fault. You cannot 'create' a democracy on foreign soil, they must do it themselves.

sure the colonists left, but the system they created was still there, and the outcome of that system will live on for many many years.

I'd like to point out that pre-colonial Africa had a worse economy than post-Colonial. Blaming the colonials for advancing Africa's economic development by 300 years, and not 500 years is stupid.

sure, the colonists had contributions for the local economy, but the way they shaped their economy put a CURSE on Africa for many years to come.

If we were to create a country for every single rival ethnical group in Africa, we would have more like a "Broken Glass" than anything remotely coherent. And the glass bits get gradually smaller and smaller until plain insignificance and invisibility.

you do know that arbitrarilly creating borders created A LOT of racial tensions. Moreover, some European countries selected "superior" people to govern inferior tribes, essentially creating racial tensions out of nowhere. The root of genocide in Rwanda was from that.

Fact is, Africa never had coherent borders, even before the Europeans. Ethnic strife was rampant, and now a remote resemblance of national unity there is only achieved through violence, bondage of ethnical group 1 by ethnical group 2, or just outright blockade and starvation. You can't blame Europe for every single evil there.

it's better to let themselves figure out, forming nations, than some outsider went in there and creating borders for the locals.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

If we were to create a country for every single rival ethnical group in Africa, we would have more like a "Broken Glass" than anything remotely coherent. And the glass bits get gradually smaller and smaller until plain insignificance and invisibility.

Fact is, Africa never had coherent borders, even before the Europeans. Ethnic strife was rampant, and now a remote resemblance of national unity there is only achieved through violence, bondage of ethnical group 1 by ethnical group 2, or just outright blockade and starvation. You can't blame Europe for every single evil there.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

you do know that arbitrarilly creating borders created A LOT of racial tensions. Moreover, some European countries selected "superior" people to govern inferior tribes, essentially creating racial tensions out of nowhere. The root of genocide in Rwanda was from that.

And you did know that even before wide European dominance there was rampant ethnic strife, and that the number 1 source of Slaves was of African raiding parties from native allies, not European ones?

Domination, often brutally, of one group by another is nothing remotely new. The Belgians and other Europeans did this because it was already tradition and would ease their rule, anyway.

it's better to let themselves figure out, forming nations, than some outsider went in there and creating borders for the locals.

They had and currently have. Current attempts often include mere infighting for ethnical dominance or bloody civil wars followed by genocide.

[bushbush]

And you did know that even before wide European dominance there was rampant ethnic strife, and that the number 1 source of Slaves was of African raiding parties from native allies, not European ones?

Domination, often brutally, of one group by another is nothing remotely new. The Belgians and other Europeans did this because it was already tradition and would ease their rule, anyway.

did artificially creating border help to ease that tension? or creating more tensions?

you answer me

They had and currently have. Current attempts often include a mere fighting for ethnical dominance or bloody civil wars.

that's not creating borders, those civil wars were fighting for power. Once the colonists left, their government collapsed, leads to military strongmen, who were certainly opposed by others, thus creating civil wars.

[Sidmen]

they had the opportunity?

when? were they offered a border making convention? LOL?

AFTER THE GAINED INDEPENDENCE! It was their country, they could do with it what they will. If that means splitting apart, thats what it means.

sure the colonists left, but the system they created was still there, and the outcome of that system will live on for many many years.

So what? The inhabitants had the power to do what most other colonial nations did and form their own government. And wait they did - military dictatorships is what they came up with. Hardly the Colonizer's fault.

sure, the colonists had contributions for the local economy, but the way they shaped their economy put a CURSE on Africa for many years to come.

I agree, the colonizer should have reverted everything back to a hunter-gatherer economy with some small farming. I mean, seriously - their standard of living (when they decide not to murder themselves) is so incredibly better than what it used to be that your point is moot.

If they invested their money into building a more balanced economy they'd be much better off - but thats their decision to make.

[bushbush]

AFTER THE GAINED INDEPENDENCE! It was their country, they could do with it what they will. If that means splitting apart, thats what it means.

really? with all the racial tensions? with the weak system falling apart? with military strongmen trying to take over?

do you think they were left a situation and environment to peacefully splitting their country apart/

So what? The inhabitants had the power to do what most other colonial nations did and form their own government. And wait they did - military dictatorships is what they came up with. Hardly the Colonizer's fault.

form their own government?

what if their current government already fall apart?!?! their former colonial government with no support falling in pieces?

civil war or dictatorship was the only possible outcome..

I agree, the colonizer should have reverted everything back to a hunter-gatherer economy with some small farming. I mean, seriously - their standard of living (when they decide not to murder themselves) is so incredibly better than what it used to be that your point is moot.

sure, if they viewed them as humans, they should develop a balanced economy with an educated labor for these people, not leaving them a cursed system.

If they invested their money into building a more balanced economy they'd be much better off - but thats their decision to make.

do they have the capital to do that?
all their economy was being exploited for their natural resource....can they accumulate enough capital to do that? what did the colonists do to help them to accumulate capital and increase productivity?!

The "borders" aren't some kind of final solution for Africa. Yes, the Europeans did it for interest, but remember that back then they were the only ones able to hold them coherently. But what's the point in creating new borders for each ethnicity?

1. Some dominant ethnical groups would not like this and throw themselves to avoid this.

2. The ethnical diversity in Africa is so big that creating borders for each violent or abused minority would effectively end with the viability of the nation-state in Africa. See the likes of Lesotho and Swaziland? Now try to make the whole Africa like that.

did I say creating a border for each country LOL? where did i say that..

My point is that borders should be decided by people there. At least SOME or MANY of them would agree...rather than drawing up something nobody agrees upon by an outsider..the result? civil war.

Dont double post-Valus

[Romulus_A]

I agree, the colonizer should have reverted everything back to a hunter-gatherer economy with some small farming. I mean, seriously - their standard of living (when they decide not to murder themselves) is so incredibly better than what it used to be that your point is moot.

I wouldn't normally say it's better (even when they don't murder), the impact of Western culture helped lay foundations for cities, rather than the villages and tribes prior to the arrival of the Europeans. With this, you have a large group of people in areas close together with an economy that generally isn't large enough to support itself. This creates poverty, disease, starvation, and what not, that was originally not present in the village system.

But of course, the whole ethnical strife is the same as it was before Europeans. Long before the Europeans arrived, tribes were at war with each other for various reasons, some that were a bit absurd. Really the only difference between now and then is that they have guns, and a camera to help spread the word.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

did artificially creating border help to ease that tension? or creating more tensions?

you answer me

The "borders" aren't some kind of final solution for Africa. Yes, the Europeans did it for interest, but remember that back then they were the only ones able to hold them coherently. But what's the point in creating new borders for each ethnicity?

1. Some dominant ethnical groups would not like this and throw themselves to avoid this.

2. The ethnical diversity in Africa is so big that creating borders for each violent or abused minority would effectively end with the viability of the nation-state in Africa. See the likes of Lesotho and Swaziland? Now try to make the whole Africa like that.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

did I say creating a border for each country LOL? where did i say that..

My point is that borders should be decided by people there. At least SOME or MANY of them would agree...rather than drawing up something nobody agrees upon by an outsider..the result? civil war.

That has already been widely tried. Bondage and violence usually followed.

The Africans are pretty free to turn their discontent into effective measures at any time, be it in democratic diplomatic negotiations or any other conceivable means. They are independent states. But nothing seems to change radically, why? Because the elites from yesterday and those that are in power today, either through violence or democracy, don't see the need for a change in the ways below their noses. That can tell a lot, afterall it's not like the UN or Europe will feed them and care for them after so many years.

[bushbush]

The Africans are pretty free to turn their discontent into effective measures at any time, be it in democratic diplomatic negotiations or any other conceivable means.

it's so easy to say...but with the weak government left in there, civil war and dictatorship were present...they really have a hard time doing business in a democratic and diplomatic process..

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

it's so easy to say...but with the weak government left in there, civil war and dictatorship were present...they really have a hard time doing business in a democratic and diplomatic process..

Well the UN is helping at Darfur, and not all African governments are "weak". Many of them are strong, heavy-handed dictatorships; some even are feeble attempts at democracy, but presently, except for some things happening in Zimbabue, nothing is changing.

[Sidmen]

really? with all the racial tensions? with the weak system falling apart? with military strongmen trying to take over?

do you think they were left a situation and environment to peacefully splitting their country apart/

2 things that have nothing to do with a colonizer. you just made my point for me. The Africans are doing this to themselves.

form their own government?

what if their current government already fall apart?!?! their former colonial government with no support falling in pieces?

civil war or dictatorship was the only possible outcome..

So? Civil wars are common and frequent - they pave the way for stability. Sadly, many Africans refuse to accept a government, and continue one series of crappy wars after the other.

sure, if they viewed them as humans, they should develop a balanced economy with an educated labor for these people, not leaving them a cursed system.

WTF? No, they were leaving, not staying. You don't waste your money building a grand economy that you won't be using.

do they have the capital to do that?
all their economy was being exploited for their natural resource....can they accumulate enough capital to do that? what did the colonists do to help them to accumulate capital and increase productivity?!

Africa is still a large exporter of gold, diamonds, and tons of other raw materials. That money is not being invested into their economy - instead being wasted on other ventures. (Tanks and guns aren't cheap)

[bushbush]

2 things that have nothing to do with a colonizer. you just made my point for me. The Africans are doing this to themselves.

nothing to do with them??

THEY SET UP the ing weak system, not for the need for the people there, but for themselves.

once they left, the system crumbles.

this is like a terrorist left a bomb on a plane, and when he saw the plane went into pieces, he said "well, i am not there, not my fault".

So? Civil wars are common and frequent - they pave the way for stability. Sadly, many Africans refuse to accept a government, and continue one series of crappy wars after the other.

WTF?
what's the reason for the civil wars in Africa?

HORRIBLE system left from colonial era and racial tensions created by colonial system..

paving way for stability my ass...how many people have died? where is the stability?

WTF? No, they were leaving, not staying. You don't waste your money building a grand economy that you won't be using.

so they robbed the country, and then left, and tell the locals to clean up themselves?

at least have the mercy to leave some of the profits and build the local economy..

Africa is still a large exporter of gold, diamonds, and tons of other raw materials. That money is not being invested into their economy - instead being wasted on other ventures. (Tanks and guns aren't cheap)

sure...those are as expensive overall as manufactured goods and high-tech products...of which they have to exchange with by selling cheap resources...at the end of day, they still have to send more money out than they can receive...that's the curse of the system.

and again, civil wars are the result of colonial system.

Well the UN is helping at Darfur, and not all African governments are "weak". Many of them are strong, heavy-handed dictatorships; some even are feeble attempts at democracy, but presently, except for some things happening in Zimbabue, nothing is changing.

how did the strong-handed dictatorship happen?

when the colonial system was weak, military strongmen often had the opportunity to steal an election or take over by force....that's the legacy of colonism.

[Romulus_A]

WTF?
what's the reason for the civil wars in Africa?

HORRIBLE system left from colonial era and racial tensions created by colonial system..

paving way for stability my ass...how many people have died? where is the stability?

Ethnical differences have always been present in Africa, long before Europeans, the only difference now is it is being fought with guns, and that it's known to the world thanks to the media.

so they robbed the country, and then left, and tell the locals to clean up themselves?

at least have the mercy to leave some of the profits and build the local economy..

Well I'm sure they wouldn't have left if they had the choice, but as more and more other colonies rebelled, it became increasingly difficult to hold onto colonies. And as the modern era dawned, they also came under increased scuitiny because the idea of colonization had started to die down.