Are Africans better off now that they rule their own countries?

[Richard]

Zimbabweans excluded (as the answer there is fairly obviously a no), what do people think? I'm not knowledgable on the topic but would like to know out of interest after reading a bit about decolonialism on here. Their governments are now a mess, but is life better or worse, or the same, for the average citizen?

EDIT: referring to black/sub-Saharan Africans here, just to clarify.

[Dunecat]

I'm sure it's an example of the darkie's weakness that they can't survive after we shocked their homelands.

The white man shall rule again!

...Depends where you looked, Africa isn't just a homogeneous pool of Black people and culture. I would also say colonization did nothing to help.

[Erik]

...Depends where you looked, Africa isn't just a homogeneous pool of Black people and culture.

Indeed.

I'd say in Most African countries the people are better off.
But in some they aren't.

Thing is: Western media only pays attention to the worst countries, so most people in the West get the false impression that all of Africa is like Zimbabwe or Sudan.

What we europeans could/should do is to provide them with farming techniques so they can sustain their population without help..

The problem isn't their farming techniques.
The problem is that African farmers have to compete with European farmers who get billions in farming subsidies, which is impossible.

Oh come on, the people SOLD EACHOTHER to us, the evil whities.

There were SOME tribes who sold people from OTHER tribes as slaves.
Just because two people have roughly the same skin color doesn't make then brothers, you know?

Even the greater African kingdoms like Axum, Ethiopia and Mali were broke nations who sometimes were so poor that they still payed with shells

That just shows your ignorance.
FYO: They didn't pay with shells because they were broke, they did it because it was a convenient and widely accepted form of currency.

Do you realize that you pay with decorated pieces of paper and coins of inexpensive metals? - how is that any better than shells?

[Holger Danske]

Seeing how they are constantly hit by stavation and civil wars I can't see how they are better off without European control... But this will eventually improve into something more stabile once they're done fighting for control, which is essentially the reason why they are so darn helpless...
What we europeans could/should do is to provide them with farming techniques so they can sustain their population without help..

[Pontifex Maximus]

They are not better off. Not by a long shot. They can barely govern themselves. They would have been better off being under European dominance and having a slow withdrawal of European power slowly letting a local government set up until in the 90's the Europeans would be gone and Africa would have stable governments instead of the starving, diseased mess there is now.

[Icefrisco]

It depends on the country. In Ghana, Botswana, and Kenya Africans are way better off. Other then those countries its very hard to determine how better off people are.

Also it depends on what a person means by "African." There are black Africans, Arab Africans, White Africans, Indian Africans, ect.

[Richard]

It depends on the country. In Ghana, Botswana, and Kenya Africans are way better off. Other then those countries its very hard to determine how better off people are.

Also it depends on what a person means by "African." There are black Africans, Arab Africans, White Africans, Indian Africans, ect.

Black Africans; Sub-Saharans of indigenous (or mostly indigenous) ancestry. Those who were there before the Europeans.

Recolonization? Who the hell wants africa?

China seem to, though not by colonisation but by investment.

[Dr. Croccer]

No, for the fifth time.

[Norge]

No, the whole place looks like a cesspool, despite endless amounts of cash flooding into the continent.

The only solution for Africa is recolonisation.
The Western world should step in and invade, restore order, and spend a few decades while advising on government, economics, policing, and building the building blocks for viable nations.

[Shaun]

No. Only a fool would say that they are better off now than they would have been if they were still under European rule. It is clear that Africans themselves are too much into petty squabbles, corruption, anti-White sentiment and genocide to do much about the shambles that are their countries. Go on, call me a racist.

[Dr. Croccer]

Can't blame them though. They missed out on nearly 500 years of technological advancement.

[Каие]

Unbelievable reactions in this thread.

[Holger Danske]

So you think they are better off now than they were under European administration?

[Dr. Croccer]

No. But we can't blame them for being savages now because that's how we found them. And ergo, we haven't taught them much. We weren't there to bring prosperity to the people to begin with now were we?


Funny actually. We found them as savages; when they were under our rule we considered them savages, even though they werent and now that they are independent we don't consider them savages, even though they behave them as such.

[Dunecat]

"Savages"

What is better? Tribal warfare or that betwixt princes? Is european chaos any more cultured?

[Shaun]

"Savages"

What is better? Tribal warfare or that betwixt princes? Is european chaos any more cultured?

Current European civilisation may not be as 'cultured' but is certainly more efficient and effective.

[Dr. Croccer]

"Savages"

What is better? Tribal warfare or that betwixt princes? Is european chaos any more cultured?

Oh come on, the people SOLD EACHOTHER to us, the evil whities. They signed a pact with the devil if it were. Even the greater African kingdoms like Axum, Ethiopia and Mali were broke nations who sometimes were so poor that they still payed with shells and demanded tribute from the Europeans who were looking for the kingdom of Prete Ianni and instead found arrogant and poor kings living in ruined churches palaces which were created by great civilisations long, long ago.

Yes there were great African kingdoms but when the Europeans explored and conquered Africa, from 1500-1900 there was little to nothing left of this greatness.

[Каие]

So you think they are better off now than they were under European administration?

i'm just shocked at the suggestions of recolonising africa.

Depends what you mean by European Administration, how are we to know whether it was worse off or not? Did they keep the same awareness and records as we do now? Did they even care if there was food shortages etc for the natives, the only thing that was better about European Administration was the corrupt bastards couldn;t get power, but in terms of standard of living, food shortages and disease European administration was no better.

The only thing the Europeans cared about were their resources and Prestige of having a large empire, as well as land and riches whilst leaving the natives in the .

Algeria in terms of freedom, living, education etc. is much better than under France but the Black African counterparts further south is another thing, poor bastards. The problems of africa are a direct result of the Europeans not giving a da,mn.


But finally we must remember that the countries are only 60 years old maximum but unlike Israel they were uneducated, poor as hell, and their climate didn't really help but this is not how it will always be, they will eventually catch up to the 2nd world in due time, after so many soldiers die there won;t be many left to fight there wars and after international businesses open up in Africa.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

i'm just shocked at the suggestions of recolonising africa.

I'd have to agree with Norge. The idea may sound radical at first, but upon further looking at the idea, you'll realize it has many benefits. The Europeans would be able to make better use of the resources than the weaker of the African governments would. Throughout a period of 25-100 years, we'd take some resources as a "payment" to boost our own economies, while the rest would be used to help reorganize the local governments to be more effective, as well as improve industry and farmland.

This would allow us to compete with the new emerging Arabic and Eastern superpowers (China, Saudi Arabia, Iran) while the Africans would be able to finally start to get caught up with the rest of the world's technology. It all makes sense.

[Yuiis]

I'd have to agree with Norge. The idea may sound radical at first, but upon further looking at the idea, you'll realize it has many benefits. The Europeans would be able to make better use of the resources than the weaker of the African governments would. Throughout a period of 25-100 years, we'd take some resources as a "payment" to boost our own economies, while the rest would be used to help reorganize the local governments to be more effective, as well as improve industry and farmland.

This would allow us to compete with the new emerging Arabic and Eastern superpowers (China, Saudi Arabia, Iran) while the Africans would be able to finally start to get caught up with the rest of the world's technology. It all makes sense.

It makes no sense at all. It makes no sense to them, and it shouldn't make sense to us, a major part of the guilt is ours', we should help them in a way that we don't invade their sovereignity at all, we should implicate in giving them real solutions, not just money that the local leader will put into his bank account in Switzerland.

If we give them real solutions, and their economies start to boost up, they will start to compete with our economies so this is not in the interest of any first world country, and in the end nothing is going to change no matter how much we debate it, or how good or bad the solutions are. (This is specially true in the agricultural sector...and you know how strong is the agricultural sector in Europe right?...) The real problem is that its not interesting at all, that most people don't give a **** for what happens in that continent. (I admit that it doesn't take my sleep either eh...)