Decolonialism - How should it have been done?

[Dodge]

After reading about Zimbabwe earlier today and reading people's opinions, many people who seem to think that although European colonists improved infastructure and industry in particular, the main problem was the manner in which decolonialism happened, and the 'unnatural borders' which still exist today.

So what I suppose I'm asking is what do you think could have been done to avoid the mess that most of Africa is in today?

[bushbush]

i honestly think it's more because they left without setting up a solid political institution.

the result is that once the backbone of colonial system is gone, there is a power vacuum and military strong men took over.

had there been a solid democratic system in place, general elections could produce stream of elected leaders, instead of dictators.

[Norge]

i honestly think it's more because they left without setting up a solid political institution.

The native population wanted them out as fast as possible. Staying in an attempt to set up anything would have most likely lead to conflict.

[mongrel]

The native population wanted them out as fast as possible. Staying in an attempt to set up anything would have most likely lead to armed conflict.

Not always the case. Many countries gained independence without much fuss being made. But where there was armed resistance it was 100% successful in the long run.

As far as the British were concerned, before the post-war Labour government virtually all infrastructure was developed almost solely for the benefit of whites and natives were kept out of the political process, a tradition kept by the Rhodesian and apartheid regimes. The French, as I understand ,did allow some degree of local input into the decision-making process. By the time British government policy changed, after the war, the winds of change were already being felt in Africa. The government hurriedly tried to set up some botched agricultural schemes with disastrous results. Britain was not in a position to do much else as we had a war to recover from.

Unbridled nationalism. Very few people besides Americans can actually legitimize the war of Independence. It was in no way the vaunted "War of liberty" it is claimed to be.
Why would I be for the decentralization and eventual dissolution of the Empire? Why would I be for more Geo-political competitors? Not for any ideals like pacifism and self determination, I'll tell you.

Nothing to do with pacifism and self determination is a Good Thing.

If I was Indian would I prefer to be subject to biblical famines every few years, living in poverty, denied access to education, barred by law from manufacturing or trading in certain items, forced to work as a peasant for pennies in order to keep people in Manchester supplied with tea or would I like to live in one of the world's largest economies, likely to dominate the coming century, work in one of the high tech, service or financial industries and take home a pile of cash as my firm buys out a British company. It really is a no brainer, unless you presume that brown people are not entitled to realise their full potential and white people are incapable of competing in a world market economy they created.

Your argument seems to be that colonialism should exist because European countries cannot manage without leeching off others. I think modern Europeans can do better than that.

[Scar Face]

Nothing to do with pacifism and self determination is a Good Thing.

How so? It leads to the break up of stable nations, just for an ideal. Sometimes it benefits their daily lives, sometimes it does not.

If I was Indian would I prefer to be subject to biblical famines every few years, living in poverty, denied access to education, barred by law from manufacturing or trading in certain items, forced to work as a peasant for pennies in order to keep people in Manchester supplied with tea or would I like to live in one of the world's largest economies, likely to dominate the coming century, work in one of the high tech, service or financial industries and take home a pile of cash as my firm buys out a British company.

Well of course the Indian would not prefer it. I am not looking at it from the perspective of an Indian, I am looking at it from the perspective of someone who benefits from his cheap labour. Frankly, moral injustices, death, and inequality are a fact of life. Especially in India. Why the hell would I let my morality get in the way- in the completely amoral world that we live in- when I can be benefiting from the lack of it?

Your argument seems to be that colonialism should exist because European countries cannot manage without leeching off others. I think modern Europeans can do better than that.

We can survive perfectly fine without Empires. We do better with them.

It really is a no brainer, unless you presume that brown people are not entitled to realise their full potential and white people are incapable of competing in a world market economy they created.

This has nothing to do with race. If an educated Indian would like to benefit from Western society, I am completely fine with that. What I am not so fine with is removing a system that brought the area and country I live in power and wealth, simply for the bleeding hearts of another. Virtually every country that achieved independence from a European Empire were doomed to poverty, instability, and social decadence anyways. They may raise their quality of living [marginally] for a time, until eventually they overstretch themselves, pollute the atmosphere, and inevitably collapse.

It's not at all unrealistic to continue an occupation. It is unrealistic to continue an occupation in the straits the European powers were in, and administrating the countries in the same fashion that they were. That breeds contempt, and it breeds rebellions. However, it was entirely possible given the right balance, to hold on to the old European Empires for a longer period.

As I said here, reforming the system was obviously needed. Outright independence is simply futile. Total equality and prosperity is simply a pipe dream.

[mongrel]

Good points Ludicus, I defer to your excellent references , in particular, as you quite rightly say, that the Carnation Revolution did change everything.

How so? It leads to the break up of stable nations, just for an ideal. Sometimes it benefits their daily lives, sometimes it does not.

Colonialism not only leads to the break up of stable nations or communities, it can wipe them out. I could suggest you to ask any native Tasmanian, but you would have to do so via a seance.

Well of course the Indian would not prefer it. I am not looking at it from the perspective of an Indian, I am looking at it from the perspective of someone who benefits from his cheap labour. Frankly, moral injustices, death, and inequality are a fact of life. Especially in India. Why the hell would I let my morality get in the way- in the completely amoral world that we live in- when I can be benefiting from the lack of it?

Aha ...the weakness in your argument. in the long run you do not benefit, stamping on others so you could benefit the world does not work that way in the modern world. South Africa worked that one out the hard way. Here is my two cents. Not my original idea, but some sage words by a quite enlightened man. (rep to anyone who can guess)

The wealth of a nation, upon which you and I depend, is dependent on the extent of its capital resources. Diverting such resources on colonial trade and other such ventures inevitably means reducing capital resources elsewhere. The artificial encouragement of the manufacture of goods sold to colonies brings a proportionate discouragement to productive activities in the home economy. Holding colonies brings no discernible economic benefit to the nation, but costs dearly in terms of defence, war and the cost of governance, which is of benefit only to those with a direct interest in them ( US in Iraq would you say?). Trade is always advantageous, even to those who make the least profit. War is ruinous. Yet governments are happy to spend money on war, yet place barriers on trade.

Colonies,and the defence of them, distract nations from their true interest which is peace and the unfettered development of the free market. War is funded by taxes on the poor, reducing individual wealth and in the process, diminishing the pursuit of happiness.

Nothing to do with morality but rather the way the free market should work.
And guess what, when Britain had colonies the working classes had to work 24/7 for a penny a day, no health service and drop dead with TB by the age of forty something. Now look at us, with a welfare state, a free health service, a minimum wage and, despite Gordon Brown's efforts, loads of £s in our pockets.

Outright independence is simply futile.

I put it to you that colonialism in Africa was futile, no power lasted longer than 70 years, pathetic, given the lifespan of many historical empires.Every single nationalist movement was successful.

[antaeus]

the only thing that could have been done, would be to listen more to peoples who want independence, and how they want their independence to be enacted..

problem was, colonial powers werent all in agreement about decolonisation, and some peoples didnt want to wait for a political process to be enacted. in general the most peaceful nations after decolonisation were those who did it on their own terms over generations with pretty much full co-operation from the colonial power.

eg. australia, canada, new zealand. however there were some dramatic failures of this approach too... eg newfoundland, and to a degree south africa.

from what i can work out, the faster and more militant the decolonisation of an area, the more chaotic its aftermath is. there are very few nations who threw off their colonial power through war, and became wealthy stable and prosperous as a result... violence tends to breed violence... and it takes a long long time to go beyond the violent birth of a nation, and it tends to encourage further breakups of territory within that new nation.

[jankren]

They all should have left in French-style kind of like in Vietnam and Algeria. Just leave, dont create anything. Let the freed population decide their fate on their own from the beginning even if it takes one-time bloodbath instead of making ignorant borders and giving favors to certain factions or groups which eventually will lead to prolonged bloodbath.

[Captain Jin]

I agree with BushBush. Either that or colonialism should never have stopped =D.

[Heinz Guderian]

Yes decolonialism was right (we burnt ourselves out in WW2 anyway), but it should have been done with better borders, not borders drawn with rulers by Oxbridge types.

[christof139]

Those colonial borders still extant were drawn without regard to the ethnic and religous differenes of people in those regions, hence leaving us with a messed-up world.

Chris

[removeduser_487563287433]

After reading about Zimbabwe earlier today and reading people's opinions, many people who seem to think that although European colonists improved infastructure and industry in particular, the main problem was the manner in which decolonialism happened, and the 'unnatural borders' which still exist today.

So what I suppose I'm asking is what do you think could have been done to avoid the mess that most of Africa is in today?

Decolonisation should not have been done, really. I mean, with that logic you should restore the USA to the native Americans, the United Kingdom to the Welsh, etc. etc. Utterly too much blame is leveled on colonisation and modern white residents, when the true villains of Africa today are monsters like Mugabe and the black heads of state that have shamelessly supported his crimes.

[bushbush]

Decolonisation should not have been done, really. I mean, with that logic you should restore the USA to the native Americans, the United Kingdom to the Welsh, etc. etc. Utterly too much blame is leveled on colonisation and modern white residents, when the true villains of Africa today are monsters like Mugabe and the black heads of state that have shamelessly supported his crimes.

who created those monsters, ferrets?

and you can't compare Africa to NOrth America. In Africa, the natives are still dominant in numbers. But in US and Canada, most natives died off diseases anyways, the whites were in huge majority.

that's why it makes sense to let the natives rule in Africa, instead of a white minority ruling over a black majority, like in many racist regimes in Africa in the past.

and who created the monsters of Africa today? the colonists. They didn't bother to set up a sustainable political system in Africa; instead, their colonial system was geared towards exploitation and was backed up military force. Once they left, the colonial system easily collapsed because it never had strong institutions and popular support. That's when evil blackmen took over from evil whitemen.

the same thing happened in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and many other former colonies right after the colonists left.

[Fingon NL]

who created those monsters, ferrets?

and you can't compare Africa to NOrth America. In Africa, the natives are still dominant in numbers. But in US and Canada, most natives died off diseases anyways, the whites were in huge majority.

that's why it makes sense to let the natives rule in Africa, instead of a white minority ruling over a black majority, like in many racist regimes in Africa in the past.

Maybe the minority and majority should rule together?

[ivan_the_terrible]

Maybe the minority and majority should rule together?

In theory the majority should rule, and the minority's rights should be guaranteed.
They tried to get to this stage in Rhodesia, but progress was too slow and lost the support of the educated blacks and moderate whites. Leaving the country vulnerable to first white supremists, then black supremists.

And now that most whites have been killed or driven out by Mugabe & Co, it should be easier to set up a democratic state once the Mugabe regime comes to an end (which it must, if only due to his death - the man is in his 80s!)
But then again, civil war wouldnt be too unlikely, between all the factions...

[removeduser_487563287433]

who created those monsters, ferrets?

and you can't compare Africa to NOrth America. In Africa, the natives are still dominant in numbers. But in US and Canada, most natives died off diseases anyways, the whites were in huge majority.

that's why it makes sense to let the natives rule in Africa, instead of a white minority ruling over a black majority, like in many racist regimes in Africa in the past.

and who created the monsters of Africa today? the colonists. They didn't bother to set up a sustainable political system in Africa; instead, their colonial system was geared towards exploitation and was backed up military force. Once they left, the colonial system easily collapsed because it never had strong institutions and popular support. That's when evil blackmen took over from evil whitemen.

the same thing happened in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and many other former colonies right after the colonists left.

Yes, please tell me who created Mugabe, Amin. The dictators in the Congo. Charles Taylor.

The fact is that it is retarded to simplify things into terms of race, and you make yourself as bad as the colonists by doing it, Bushbush.

[Farnan]

Charles Taylor.

Liberia is a funny situation as it was colonised by African-Americans (use that term to differentiated from the Blacks of Africa). Starting shortly before American Civil War there was "Back to Africa" movement among some White and Black leaders. The goal was to send the Freed Slaves back to Africa, some with racist intentions others with the semi-noble intention to reverse slavery. Well those Blacks that took part in the "Back to Africa" movement ended up colonising the natives there.

[bushbush]

Yes, please tell me who created Mugabe, Amin. The dictators in the Congo. Charles Taylor.

The fact is that it is retarded to simplify things into terms of race, and you make yourself as bad as the colonists by doing it, Bushbush.

dude, who created the condition for this monster to come to power?

can he come to power in UK? in USA? or in a power vacuum situation when there is no solid political insitituion left?

personally, i think it's retarded compare the natives in NOrth America to the ones in Africa. Completely different situation.

you should compare the ones in South-east Asia and Africa. That makes more sense.

edit: I am not passing judgement onto colonists. Be honest, I 'd probably do the same if I were them. I just wanted to point out the relationship between colonial past and the political mess at the present. Colonial legacy plays a crucial role in these former colonies, in Africa and in South-east Asia.

[removeduser_487563287433]

dude, who created the condition for this monster to come to power?

can he come to power in UK? in USA? or in a power vacuum situation when there is no solid political insitituion left?

personally, i think it's retarded compare the natives in NOrth America to the ones in Africa. Completely different situation.

you should compare the ones in South-east Asia and Africa. That makes more sense.

edit: I am not passing judgement onto colonists. Be honest, I 'd probably do the same if I were them. I just wanted to point out the relationship between colonial past and the political mess at the present. Colonial legacy plays a crucial role in these former colonies, in Africa and in South-east Asia.

Poor craftsmen blame their tools.

[Hansa]

Although things could have been handled far better, I don't think there were ever good solutions to begin with when it came to retreating from Africa. Obviously, fighting the Africans to hold territory where Europeans shouldn't have been in the first place was the worst idea. Coopting local elites into local rulership networks, not favoring one tribe over another, devolution of powers gradually for a time until full retreat etc were probably the best solutions and were to some extent done by the British.

As for the European drawn borders, well they weren't normally drawn right across a previously functioning African state. Africa was an interlapping diverse tribal society. A prestate society, with no state structures. There were no borders to begin with. Although the European lines on the map probably didn't improve things, its probably to simplistic to blame Europe for all the mess in Africa. Prestate tribes with AK-47's not a good combination.