Some African Countries Would be Better off as Colonies

[HMS Empire Broadsword]

Looking at some African countries like Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe etc, all the civil wars, rebellions, orruption, foreign aid debt, poverty, diease and all the rest, surely they would have been better off as Imperial possesions of Britain or France?

Under empires, these collections of primitive, warring tribes and kingdoms became modernising, economically growing and better places to live, what with all the trade, new technology, industry, economy, services, schools, roads, hospitals, law and genral improvements the European countries were bringing.

Then when the Empires broke up, all of theese improvements unwound slightly.

Look at the pitiful state of poverty, debt, disease, war, corruption, economic stagnation, inflation and countless other things in which many african countries are now left in. Surely, they would be better off under Britain, France, SPain or Portugal?

I wonder what those same states would look like today if they had remained imperial possesions.

[xcorps]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[removeduser_052420]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

wtf does singapore have to do with anything?

[Pontifex Maximus]

egypt? It just shows how important geography and climate are, all 4 oldest ancient civilizations emerged along great rivers and around the roughly same latitude regions.

In that case South Africa should have been a thriving metropolis, but after the Bantu migrations (how exciting...) we don't hear much of anything from that region until Muslim traders start visiting.

wtf does singapore have to do with anything?

I thought that didn't look like Africa.

[bushbush]

In that case South Africa should have been a thriving metropolis, but after the Bantu migrations (how exciting...) we don't hear much of anything from that region until Muslim traders start visiting.
.

how could have south africa in history been able to interact with other civilizations for most part? That's why i stressed all 4 in the same climate zone. Exchange and infusion are crucial to the developments of a region. Much of Africa are simply too isolated in history, much like the New World.

I responded to 'I wonder what those same states would look like today if they had remained imperial possesions. ' (last line in the OP) with a picture of a developed urban area as a jest.

doubtful, their economies even under colonialism were mainly natural resources exploitation, rather than service industry.

[Pontifex Maximus]

how could have south africa in history been able to interact with other civilizations for most part? That's why i stressed all 4 in the same climate zone. Exchange and infusion are crucial to the developments of a region. Much of Africa are simply too isolated in history, much like the New World.

And yet the Aztecs, Inca and Mayans managed to develop societies much more complex than Africa's.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Bay,_Singapore

Theres a difference between the asian colonies and african colonies. When the colonial powers left Africa they left colonies that encompassed the borders of various tribes. The colonial powers education policies toward the natives were lacking. In essence the colonies were economical only for the colonial powers. Hong Kong, Singapore, Manila, were all trading centers and were much less divided in cultures.

To put in perspective, the borders of Several west african countries are full of various tribes. Basically borders have been drawn to encompass several if not hundreds of tribes. I am quite sure that if the borders were drawn to include the smaller tribes into their nation-states, effectively creating new states out of the colonies then many of the problems we see now would be gone.

http://www.african-tribes.org/map-of...-2502x2984.jpg

In a way its like putting together several nations of Germany into one united country before Bismark came around. These nations are neither friends nor similar cultures. Their infrastructures are horrible, and their villages are rural.

[Ludicus]

. Basically borders have been drawn to encompass several if not hundreds of tribes. I am quite sure that if the borders were drawn to include the smaller tribes into their nation-states, effectively creating new states out of the colonies ...

..Hundreds of new nations. Impracticable.

Tribalism and corruption accounts for the root cause of many problems in Africa,and, of course, tribal warfare existed long before colonialism; but to see the crisis in Africa as the fallout of the colonialism,is preferring to stay in a state of denial:
In Angola, during the colonial war,the opposition had comprised 3 tribally and ideologically distinct groups:
1 - The Kimbundu-centered Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), founded in 1956 by exiled intellectuals who soon became Marxist, with support from USRR.

2 -The non-Marxist Kongo-centered National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FLNA) with support from Zaire (non-Marxist)

3 - The Ovimbundu-centered (Angola's largest tribe) National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), Jonas Savimbi's 1966 offshoot of FLNA, with support from United States.

As far as we can see, Neocolonialism encourages tribalism, this is a fact.
It´s also a fact that Angolan Civil War was "one of the largest, longest, and most prominent armed conflicts of the Cold War"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War

Of course, we can not deny that the colonial powers used tribalism as a tool to obtain control; But the idyllic pictures of the African past before the colonialism are historically incorrect.

[Aru]

So certain African countries and populations should serve the needs of European states, produce what is needed in Europe, be cheap workforce and generally a playground for politicians who like to draw maps, while any attempt of local population for free will and self government or at least respect of basic human rights should be terminated by force?

That is colonialism, you know. Colonies didn't serve to be bettered by Colonial powers, but to serve their needs, specially regarding the resources, produce and precious metals/diamonds. Any modernizations in colonies were side effect of Europeans settlers trying to have more pleasant environment for themselves and the need to lessen the cost of running the colony.

[Jingles]

xcorps, that's repworthy.

You know, these countries were in fact SO much better as Imperial possessions that they rebelled against colonial rule! Imagine that! /sarcasm

I hope you realise that colonial occupation was exactly what caused these countries to be the way they are now? As colonies they hardly developed properly - their growth was permanently stunted by what their european overlords did to them. The hasty retreat of the imperial powers did nothing to help the matter either. People like Idi Amin, for example in Uganda. He was placed in a position of power by the British when they left, and look what happened...

If those states existed today as Imperial possesions, dictators wouldn't be massacring their citizens with machine-gun fire, British soldiers would be.

[Logik]

xcorps, that's repworthy.

You know, these countries were in fact SO much better as Imperial possessions that they rebelled against colonial rule! Imagine that! /sarcasm

I hope you realise that colonial occupation was exactly what caused these countries to be the way they are now? As colonies they hardly developed properly - their growth was permanently stunted by what their european overlords did to them. The hasty retreat of the imperial powers did nothing to help the matter either. People like Idi Amin, for example in Uganda. He was placed in a position of power by the British when they left, and look what happened...

If those states existed today as Imperial possesions, dictators wouldn't be massacring their citizens with machine-gun fire, British soldiers would be.

You are very correct but are they any better now as they are? Just look at the atrocities and wars and genocide that are occurring now as we speak.

Most of Africa is a war zone and very under developed.If they are not better of as colonies which i agree then what way should happen to these countries?

Leave them as they are? we all see how well that's going.All you have to do is turn to CNN.

[Blue eyed angel]

You are very correct but are they any better now as they are? Just look at the atrocities and wars and genocide that are occurring now as we speak.

Most of Africa is a war zone and very under developed.If they are not better of as colonies which i agree then what way should happen to these countries?

Leave them as they are? we all see how well that's going.All you have to do is turn to CNN.

[xcorps]

He was placed in a position of power by the British when they left, and look what happened...

I'm no historian, but I thought Amin took power in a coup.

[Jingles]

I'm no historian, but I thought Amin took power in a coup.

The British Army left him as one of the highest ranking officers in the Ugandan military, from which he was able to organise the coup. In fact he was one of the first two Ugandans to receive an officer's commission after the British left. The point is, Amin already had dangerous ideas even then, and the pull-out by the British was very sloppily planned.

[Gauvin]

I hope you realise that colonial occupation was exactly what caused these countries to be the way they are now? As colonies they hardly developed properly - their growth was permanently stunted by what their european overlords did to them.

There is a period of history that exists before european imperialism and colonialism, study it to see how those regions you mentioned fared before.

Although the exploitation was horrible, I'd say that europeans introduced great things to different continents, like the parliamentary system to India. People like to say how racist the Brits were, but always fail to mention how members of the Indian National Congress were educated in Britain, and recieved a better education than most britains. Now, to say that indigenous benefited from British rule is unpopular, because it feels condescending to indigenous people, but it seems to me, the Indians learned much more from the Europeans than vice versa, and saying so shouldn't be so taboo. We can after all say that islamic civilization had a civilizing effect on european barbarians, even though Islamic civilization was forged by conquest, colonialism, imperialism and subjugation and this is perfectly fine.

[bushbush]

There is a period of history that exists before european imperialism and colonialism, study it to see how those regions you mentioned fared before.

Although the exploitation was horrible, I'd say that europeans introduced great things to different continents, like the parliamentary system to India. People like to say how racist the Brits were, but always fail to mention how members of the Indian National Congress were educated in Britain, and recieved a better education than most britains. Now, to say that indigenous benefited from British rule is unpopular, because it feels condescending to indigenous people, but it seems to me, the Indians learned much more from the Europeans than vice versa, and saying so shouldn't be so taboo. We can after all say that islamic civilization had a civilizing effect on european barbarians, even though Islamic civilization was forged by conquest, colonialism, imperialism and subjugation and this is perfectly fine.

that's a bad way to look at it. Countries have adopted democracy and prospered without being conquered and colonized for so long. Taiwan and Korea found their own models of democracy after many years of institutional and economic development. Brits in india caused more problems than they solved, retarding the economic growth for years with the exploitation model and triggered the partition of india, which is one of the greatest tragedies in 20th century.

[HMS Empire Broadsword]

that's a bad way to look at it. Countries have adopted democracy and prospered without being conquered and colonized for so long. Taiwan and Korea found their own models of democracy after many years of institutional and economic development. Brits in india caused more problems than they solved, retarding the economic growth for years with the exploitation model and triggered the partition of india, which is one of the greatest tragedies in 20th century.

Before the British, there was no democarcy, India was ruled by a collection of warring states, who with some exceptions exploited their people.

Britain unified India, brought countless benefits to it like excellent education, roads, hospitals, trains, sanitaion, law and order, democracy, an large increase in wealth, literacy and standards of living.

And Britain actually kickstarted India's economy, of course they took most of the profits but that was the whole point of us owning India, to make money.

One reason India became Independent is that so many Indians recieved quality new education and ideas, it was these ideas which led to the movement for independence. Sort of like the clamour for reform public order penalty in ETW. This was true throughout the empire.

So India actually benefited greatly from British rule.

[bushbush]

Before the British, there was no democarcy, India was ruled by a collection of warring states, who with some exceptions exploited their people.

and it wasn't necessary to have democracy through occupation and colonization. Countries have become democracy without going through that and paying all the prices of being a colony.

Britain unified India, brought countless benefits to it like excellent education, roads, hospitals, trains, sanitaion, law and order, democracy, an large increase in wealth, literacy and standards of living.

they could have done a lot better without the brits. They built all the infrastructures geared towards exploitation, rather than facilitating long term prosperity (opium was one of the biggest exports, did India benefit from that in the long run?) And no, they did little to increase literacy, standard of living and rule of law among ordinary indians. They did only for colonial administration. If the goal is different, the result is not very good either.

And Britain actually kickstarted India's economy, of course they took most of the profits but that was the whole point of us owning India, to make money.

kicked started what? India was already a large trade region before Brits. And when brits left, India was still not industrialized. India's manufacture finally surpassed agriculture last year in total GDP, and they did it on their own. It took them so long thanks partially to the Brits retarding india's economy through colonization.

One reason India became Independent is that so many Indians recieved quality new education and ideas, it was these ideas which led to the movement for independence. Sort of like the clamour for reform public order penalty in ETW. This was true throughout the empire..

no, it's oppression, inequality, and nationalism that led to independence, which was a bloody and costly affair for india, leading to the partition of the country, which is one of the greatest tragedies in the 20th century.

So India actually benefited greatly from British rule.

Britain benefited greatly. India did not. It got all the worst parts of colonization and gained meagerly. The net cost of colonization is always bad for the victim country.

[jankren]

There is a period of history that exists before european imperialism and colonialism, study it to see how those regions you mentioned fared before.

Although the exploitation was horrible, I'd say that europeans introduced great things to different continents, like the parliamentary system to India. People like to say how racist the Brits were, but always fail to mention how members of the Indian National Congress were educated in Britain, and recieved a better education than most britains. Now, to say that indigenous benefited from British rule is unpopular, because it feels condescending to indigenous people, but it seems to me, the Indians learned much more from the Europeans than vice versa, and saying so shouldn't be so taboo. We can after all say that islamic civilization had a civilizing effect on european barbarians, even though Islamic civilization was forged by conquest, colonialism, imperialism and subjugation and this is perfectly fine.

The spread of ideas doesnt require direct conquest.

The Spaniards wont live in caves (exaggeration) forever if the Arabs never invaded them.

Thailand is the only Southeast Asian country that was never colonized by European powers and guess what? They fare better than many of the surrounding countries which proves colonialism is irrelevant in determining the progress of a country.

As an Indonesian, I would rather have the Dutch take back everything they gave to us and give back everything they took from us.

[Koelkastmagneet]

As an Indonesian, I would rather have the Dutch take back everything they gave to us and give back everything they took from us.

Well 'we' really only took spices and such which is sustainable, am I right?

Well there is the mining stuff in West-Papua, but to say that should belong to Indonesia is retarded on it's own.