Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

  1. #21
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,324

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Yet the rest of Latin America, where the US had little involvement, is not in much better shape than Central America, despite the great mineral resources. The US had little involvement in the War of the Triple Alliance, which had a devastating impact on Paraguay's population. While the US did not make matters better, it can be questioned that it really made matters that much worse than they would have been it hadn't been involved at all.
    Cherry picked period in history, The Brazilian Military Dictatorship, the Argentinian Dirty War, and the colorado faction of the Paraguayan civil war, were all directly supported by the US and have had lasting effects on the development of all three countries. It's kind of silly to point at a period in history were independant powerful nations waged war at each other and say "See! Without colonial powers they're every bit as bad!" Nevermind that the nations themselves are a direct result of colonialism.

    Let's examine the problems that bother Sub Saharan African:
    The whole problem with your entire following argument is that the cited problems were never problems until the european colonial powers made them so. Social Evolutionism isn't a thing anymore, brah, they weren't lagging behind some percieved line of progress that colonialism sought to adress.

    If you can excuse the forced analogy: It's like taking two rural communities, forcing them to build a multi-story apartment complex, then forcing them to service the people that now live and mantain the multi-story apartment complex, then giving them the complex after years of insurrection and external pressure, sabotaging any attempts at establishing a new community that can use and mantain said complex, all the while feeding into internal strife; then, as the apartment falls apart under it's own weight, do you have the gall to complain "well it's actually their fault for not having the tools to mantain the apartment complex in the first place".

    No .

    As was everybody elses chances. Africans raided Europe for slaves well until the 19th century, and only stopped when Europeans used forced and conquered north Africa. China under the Qing commited genocide against the Dzungar mongols, and still practices colonialism against the Tibetans today. Or did you happen to miss China's invasion of Tibet? The western half of China was obtained by colonialism and conquest of the native people. The Zulu expanded into southern Africa at the expense of the natives already living there.
    Yeah but it's kind of annoying when you're touting the success of your way of life when it was only possible by screwing over the people you're touting at. Yeah no capitalism worked for Europe, ya ed the whole world for it.

    I ain't jokin' when it comes to mah paintings ಠ_ಠ

  2. #22
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,027

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Most of your post is completely inaccurate but I'm at work and saxdude already adressed some of your post so i'll address one of your worst points:


    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Africans could have junked and redrawn the borders themselves at the end of colonialism, but didn't, mainly because they had nothing really to replace the borders with. What is often not pointed out is that it is often the case that a large number of different ethnic groups live in close geographic proximity to each other. It would have been very difficult, next to impossible, to draw in many cases country boundaries based on just ethnicity. The same landscape is filled with a quilt work patch of different ethnic groups. How could a map of Rwanda been drawn that gave separate countries to the Tutsi and the Hutus?
    Either you are intentionally ignorant on this or just have an incredibly poor understanding on history and the challenges faced by Africans at the end of colonialism.

    I don't know if you noticed, but the borders drawn in Africa since the end of colonialism have changed. Africans have changed and have attempted to change borders for decades now. Sudan splitting into two countries, The Nigerian-Biafran War, the Ethiopian-Eritrea War, the Rhodesian Bush War, the Angolan Civil War, and so on. to say the Africans never tried to change their borders is ignorance at best.

    No one said you had to draw the border in Africa based solely on ethnicity. It doesn't change that the borders drawn at the end of colonial rule were horrible and contributed to conflict in Africa. Could have at least tried to consult with the various peoples and tribes on the borders to draw but i don't think they did that. Could be mistaken.

    Oh and you didn't need to redraw Rwanda. The whole problem that happened in Rwanda dealt with the history between the Tutsi and Hutu people. They had tensions even before colonialism with the Tutsi ruling over the Kingdom of Rwanda and making the Hutus perform forced labor to get lands seized from them back.

    When the Germans came first, they made an alliance with the Tutsi king and favored the Tutsi over the Hutus when it came to administrative positions believing them to be racially superior to the Hutus,Then the Belgians came along and took over reinforcing the Tutsi supremacy and disenfranchising the Hutus further.

    If it were not for the Europeans reinforcing Tutsi supremacy of the Hutus, then its very possible the Rwandan genocide could have been prevented.
    Last edited by Vanoi; June 19, 2019 at 01:59 PM.

  3. #23
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,556

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    If it were not for the Europeans reinforcing Tutsi supremacy of the Hutus, then its very possible the Rwandan genocide could have been prevented.
    Yeah all Tutsi would just be send to "reeducation" camp.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  4. #24

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    [QUOTE=saxdude;15801777]Cherry picked period in history, The Brazilian Military Dictatorship, the Argentinian Dirty War, and the colorado faction of the Paraguayan civil war, were all directly supported by the US and have had lasting effects on the development of all three countries. It's kind of silly to point at a period in history were independant powerful nations waged war at each other and say "See! Without colonial powers they're every bit as bad!" Nevermind that the nations themselves are a direct result of colonialism. [/Quote@]

    Contrary to what you claim, Latin America was not paradise on Earth before the US meddle in the affairs. The mess in Venuzuala is not of the US making, and as I said, the Paraguay War of the Triple Alliance which resulted in perhaps half the population of Paraguay being killed wasn't ether. Latin America was full of dictators long before the US was actively involved. I don't like or agree with much of the CIA actions, any more than I agree with the CIA giving it's own personnel LSD without consent or being informed. But I think you are deluding yourself if all or even most of the problems of the Latin American countries would have disappeared if the US had stayed out of its affairs. The US expolitdd maybe these corrupt governments to its own advantage perhaps, but it didn't create them, although it might be guilty as you said in hindering efforts of reforms. The problems of Latin America date back to Spanish and Portuege colonial times nd as I said, these dictators and corrupt government existed before the US was active on the scene. It is not cherry picking to point that out, what you are doing is as much cherry picking as you assert to me. If you are saying that the US should not have gotten invovled they way it did, I will agree, but the problems predates the US active inovlrment. It is not cherry picking to point out the War of the Triple Alliance was a local affair, of which the US was not the cause or invovled. How much h better off Latin America would benefit if the US stay d out of it is impossible to say.


    The whole problem with your entire following argument is that the cited problems were never problems until the european colonial powers made them so. Social Evolutionism isn't a thing anymore, brah, they weren't lagging behind some percieved line of progress that colonialism sought to adress.
    Colonism did not create the issues of high infant mortality, lack of literacy and the rest. If you are ok with infant mortality running at 25%, then Africa had no problem. I happen to disagree with you, and in any case, it is these issue that Europeans are blames for. If they are a peblem now, then you can't claim they were not issues before. Just because people might not know any better, that doesn't mean it was there was not problems.

    If you can excuse the forced analogy: It's like taking two rural communities, forcing them to build a multi-story apartment complex, then forcing them to service the people that now live and mantain the multi-story apartment complex, then giving them the complex after years of insurrection and external pressure, sabotaging any attempts at establishing a new community that can use and mantain said complex, all the while feeding into internal strife; then, as the apartment falls apart under it's own weight, do you have the gall to complain "well it's actually their fault for not having the tools to mantain the apartment complex in the first place".
    Except your analogy is wrong. The Zulus expanded into south Africa in conquest that shed some amount of blood, where the Europeans were not invovled. Africa had its own native empires that rose and fell long before the Europeans were on the scene, and the conquest of these empires were not always peaceful. The colonial period lasted for a most part less than a hundred years, Civilization has been around in Africa for a thousand years. Internal strife existed before the Europeans, and sooner or later some empire/group would have forced the people of Africa to build your multi-story apartment, if not outside, then native group would have done so.

    It like what I read somewhere - stealing from a helpless blind man may be despicable, but it was the man being blind and helpless that allowed one to steal from him...it is quite another thing to claim as you do that they made the man blind and helpless in the first place.
    I
    We



    Yeah but it's kind of annoying when you're touting the success of your way of life when it was only possible by screwing over the people you're touting at. Yeah no capitalism worked for Europe, ya ed the whole world for it.
    You got it backwards - it was the success of the Europeans in the first place that allowed them to screw people over as you say, I am not going post not screwing people over made them a success. For example, the printing press was invented and established in Europe before Columbus landed in the Americas. The first steam engines were invented and built a century before the scramble of Africa began. It was inventions like the steam engine that allowed the Europeans to colonize most of Africa. Until the Europeans invented repeating rifles, most of Africa remained free of European control. The technological development had little to do with the exploitations of others, but was part of a process of arms developments that Europeans were leading as far back as the 15th century. The first steam engines were driven by and funded by the need to mine domestic coal, which was used domestically in Europe. It was coal owners that paid for the first steam engines, and the British coal industry dated back to the middle ages and even Roman times. The development of the ship chronometers were developed before Africa or even India was colonized, and it was based on technology Europeans developed in the middle ages. Europe faced exploitstion by outsiders, like pirates from Africa that enslaved Europeans until the Europeans were strong enough to put a stop to it in the 19th century. Repeatedly Europe had to best back invasions from outside, to drive invaders from North Africa out of Spain, and repeated invasions by the Turks into Western Europe. European victories at Chalons, Tours, Lechfield saved it from the date of Africa, and that was by their own effort which the plunder of other lands played no role.


    I find it equally annoying to claim that events centuries in the future were responsible for the success of the Europeans in the past. Are you saying that Europeans some how sent money from Africa in the 19th century to Gutenberg in the 15th century so he could invent the printing press? Or did the British send money from India decadez in the past before India was colonized so Newton develop his law of gravity? I find it annoying to assert European achievements were all due to.exploitation that happened decades, centuries in the future. That is like claiming China's achievements were due to it's conquest.of Tibet in the Qing dynasty. Whatever the morality of China's takeover of Tibet, you will agree that it's success today had little to do with it.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Most of your post is completely inaccurate but I'm at work and saxdude already adressed some of your post so i'll address one of your worst points:



    Either you are intentionally ignorant on this or just have an incredibly poor understanding on history and the challenges faced by Africans at the end of colonialism.

    I don't know if you noticed, but the borders drawn in Africa since the end of colonialism have changed. Africans have changed and have attempted to change borders for decades now. Sudan splitting into two countries, The Nigerian-Biafran War, the Ethiopian-Eritrea War, the Rhodesian Bush War, the Angolan Civil War, and so on. to say the Africans never tried to change their borders is ignorance at best.

    No one said you had to draw the border in Africa based solely on ethnicity. It doesn't change that the borders drawn at the end of colonial rule were horrible and contributed to conflict in Africa. Could have at least tried to consult with the various peoples and tribes on the borders to draw but i don't think they did that. Could be mistaken.
    You are talking about just a handfull of countries out of the several dozens of African countries you complain about the how the boundarieswere drawn. And the Nigeria-Biafra civil war illustrates the point that the Nigerians could have peacefully let Biafra form it's own country, but violently refused . That was not the fault of the Europeans, but the Africans themselves. And the Ethopian-Etritrea war was not the result of colonialism, but due to the imperial ambitions of Ethopia. Ethopia tried to incorporate Eritrea , which was not under ts control at the time of colonialism. The war resulted from the same kind of imperial ambitions as the Europeans displayed, if on a smaller scale. It shows how you want.to blame the Europeans for everything.
    Armed.conflicts existed before and after the Europeans.arrived.


    Oh and you didn't need to redraw Rwanda. The whole problem that happened in Rwanda dealt with the history between the Tutsi and Hutu people. They had tensions even before colonialism with the Tutsi ruling over the Kingdom of Rwanda and making the Hutus perform forced labor to get lands seized from them back.

    When the Germans came first, they made an alliance with the Tutsi king and favored the Tutsi over the Hutus when it came to administrative positions believing them to be racially superior to the Hutus,Then the Belgians came along and took over reinforcing the Tutsi supremacy and disenfranchising the Hutus further.
    Again, no one put a gun to the heads of the Hutus and forced them.to.commit atrocities, and as you admit, the conflict existed before the Europeans between the 2 ethnic groups. This is another example of where the problems of Africa are blamed on everyone but thd Africans. Are you still going g to be blaming Africa's problems on Europeans a thousand years later? Africa would make more.progress in solving its problems if they took more responsibility for them. Successful people,.groups, companies.and nation's don't blame all their problems on others, but take ownership of them, and even if they say some of the conditions might have been caused by others, the solution and resolution lies within themselves. If Africa suffered under colonialism, it was because of their own weakness. Europe faced colonialism by others, and if it suffered less, it was because they were simply more successful in fighting off colonial invaders, as I previously points out. You complain about my ignorance, but yours is just as bad or worse. Name a major city in Africa that was completely destroyed and never rebuilt the way Aquila was by the invading Huns. Centuries before the first African slave. Was brought to the New World, Africans from North Africa were raiding Europe for slaves


    If it were not for the Europeans reinforcing Tutsi supremacy of the Hutus, then its very possible the Rwandan genocide could have been prevented.
    Perhaps, perhaps not. The Nigerians did not have to as brutally supress the the Biafra rebellion as it did, and as I said, no one forced the Hutus to commit their atrocities . Strife between ethnic groups exist in many parts of the world, and if the Europeans exploited the divisions, they did not create them. It is almost a half century since olonial times, at some point the Africans will have to take charge of their own destiny. Blaming colonialism, even if true, isn't going to solve the.problems. And if the problems are not all due to colonialism, then blaming everything on colonialism isn't going to address some of the causes that might have nothing to do with colonialism.. Whatever the effect, it has been more than a generation since colonialism, I would say a large percentage of the Africans today.were not alive during colonialism.


    I don't say that colonialism didn't cause great problems and left a long lasting legacy, it did. But I.do say that not all of the problems Africa suffers from is due to colonialism, and even the adverse legacy of colonialism.can be overcome, if people concentrate on fixing the issues. Africans were not the first people to.suffer under colonial rule. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the strong often.exploit the weak, and the Europeans were no worse at that, just more successful.

  6. #26
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    12,763

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Colonism did not create the issues of high infant mortality, lack of literacy and the rest. If you are ok with infant mortality running at 25%, then Africa had no problem. I happen to disagree with you, and in any case, it is these issue that Europeans are blames for. If they are a peblem now, then you can't claim they were not issues before. Just because people might not know any better, that doesn't mean it was there was not problems.
    Well you have been typing a lot. I will to some longer post to cover more of you arguments but this jumped out at me.

    So you are suggesting that be colonial Africa had and aver infant mortality rate of ~250 per 1000 liver births. Based on what but no matter. You imply colonialism fixed this? Yet the data I can for example of 3 nation circa independance would beg to differ

    Kenya 120 180 rate
    Cote d'Ivoire 170 230
    Senegal 260 320

    Not a range but the lower one is for the ethnic group that had been favored by the colonial power the higher for those who were not favored. White man's burden not not seem to be giving must a rat's bum about infant mortality.

    Source (book)

    Ethnicity and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa
    M Brockerhoff, P Hewett - 1998
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  7. #27
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,556

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Kenya 120 180 rate
    Cote d'Ivoire 170 230
    Senegal 260 320
    Make you wondering why French was out-competed by British.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  8. #28

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    [QUOTE=conon394;15801939]Well you have been typing a lot. I will to some longer post to cover more of you arguments but this jumped out at me.

    So you are suggesting that be colonial Africa had and aver infant mortality rate of ~250 per 1000 liver births. Based on what but no matter. You imply colonialism fixed this? Yet the data I can for example of 3 nation circa independance would beg to differ

    Kenya 120 180 rate
    Cote d'Ivoire 170 230
    Senegal 260 320 [/quote
    What evidence is that infant mortality became worse during colonialism than before? This exactly the kind of thing I was talking about, infant mortality was high before the Europeans ever came, so why blame the colonialism for something that existed before colonialism? The technology created by the European is what enabled the drastic reduction of infant mortality. Sure, thr Europeans did not work to fix Africa problems, but why should were not succeed expect colonial powers to solve Africa's problems? Sure, the colonial powers did not do much to solve Africa's problems, but the point is that these problems existed before the Europeans. "White Man's Burden" is nonsense and not true, I agree, but that is not my point. Sure the colonial powers primary goal was not to improve the lot of the colonial and natives, but colonies are usually not run for the benefit of the natives, but the for the ruling country, any benefit gained is mostly by accident, not intent. Even when the colonies are settled by those of the same race and people as the mother ountry, as in America - Britain tried to rule America for the benefit of England, and stifled a number of industries, which lead to the American Revolution.. That is always the case. But the Europeans did not create the problems of Africa, they existed before the Europeanz arrived. The Africsans never tried to stamp out famines in Europe, and long before the Europeans made slaves of Africans, Africans were making slaves of Europeans and each other. The exploitation the Europeans committed is no different from what the Africans themselves did, it was just the Europeans were better at it. A rich thief is not greeder than a poor thief, just better at stealing is all. ct

    In any case, infant mortality was not worse than before colonialism, and it was being asserted that Africa had no problem before colonialism, which wasn't true, unless you insist an infant mortality of 250 per 1000 is a good thing. And even a 180 rats is better than the 25% (250) rate or higher that likely existed before colonialism. The rate of 25% I reference was for the most advanced societies of the past, and it is possible Africa was worse than that. If it far lower today in Africa, it is due to the technology they obtained from the Europeans.

    Not a range but the lower one is for the ethnic group that had been favored by the colonial power the higher for those who were not favored. White man's burden not not seem to be giving must a rat's bum about infant mortality.
    have

    To complain about the rate under colonialism you have to know what it was before. A level of 25% infant mortality rate was what was achieved by the most advanced societies in the past, and less advanced areas could have had higher rates. And keep in mind that Euroepan colonialism was brief, you are talking about somewhere around 50 years or even less. It would have taken time for the changes implementex by the Europeans to fully take affect. The favored groups would have had thr most contact access to modern European technology. There just were not that many Europeans in the Africa.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; June 20, 2019 at 06:44 AM.

  9. #29
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,027

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    You are talking about just a handfull of countries out of the several dozens of African countries you complain about the how the boundarieswere drawn.
    I'm sure there is more than what i named but thats not the point. You were the one who said Africans never tried to redraw the borders.

    And the Nigeria-Biafra civil war illustrates the point that the Nigerians could have peacefully let Biafra form it's own country, but violently refused . That was not the fault of the Europeans, but the Africans themselves. And the Ethopian-Etritrea war was not the result of colonialism, but due to the imperial ambitions of Ethopia. Ethopia tried to incorporate Eritrea , which was not under ts control at the time of colonialism. The war resulted from the same kind of imperial ambitions as the Europeans displayed, if on a smaller scale. It shows how you want.to blame the Europeans for everything.
    Armed.conflicts existed before and after the Europeans.arrived.
    Wasn't Eritrea given to Ethopia after the war? If not i'll withdraw that example.

    Otherwise no one is blamong Europe for the Nigerian Bifran war. Just that they created the conditions to happen. Nigeria is an artificial country at the end of the day that was created without any consideration to the different peoples that live there.



    Again, no one put a gun to the heads of the Hutus and forced them.to.commit atrocities, and as you admit, the conflict existed before the Europeans between the 2 ethnic groups. This is another example of where the problems of Africa are blamed on everyone but thd Africans. Are you still going g to be blaming Africa's problems on Europeans a thousand years later? Africa would make more.progress in solving its problems if they took more responsibility for them. Successful people,.groups, companies.and nation's don't blame all their problems on others, but take ownership of them, and even if they say some of the conditions might have been caused by others, the solution and resolution lies within themselves. If Africa suffered under colonialism, it was because of their own weakness. Europe faced colonialism by others, and if it suffered less, it was because they were simply more successful in fighting off colonial invaders, as I previously points out. You complain about my ignorance, but yours is just as bad or worse. Name a major city in Africa that was completely destroyed and never rebuilt the way Aquila was by the invading Huns. Centuries before the first African slave. Was brought to the New World, Africans from North Africa were raiding Europe for slaves
    People are influenced by their enviorment abd expierences. Europe reinforced the tensions between the group for decades making it worse and creating the conditions for the genocide to happen. Hutus hold direct responsibility but colonalism helped that happen.

    You simply want to try and justify colonalism when it had negative effects.




    Perhaps, perhaps not. The Nigerians did not have to as brutally supress the the Biafra rebellion as it did, and as I said, no one forced the Hutus to commit their atrocities . Strife between ethnic groups exist in many parts of the world, and if the Europeans exploited the divisions, they did not create them. It is almost a half century since olonial times, at some point the Africans will have to take charge of their own destiny. Blaming colonialism, even if true, isn't going to solve the.problems. And if the problems are not all due to colonialism, then blaming everything on colonialism isn't going to address some of the causes that might have nothing to do with colonialism.. Whatever the effect, it has been more than a generation since colonialism, I would say a large percentage of the Africans today.were not alive during colonialism.


    I don't say that colonialism didn't cause great problems and left a long lasting legacy, it did. But I.do say that not all of the problems Africa suffers from is due to colonialism, and even the adverse legacy of colonialism.can be overcome, if people concentrate on fixing the issues. Africans were not the first people to.suffer under colonial rule. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the strong often.exploit the weak, and the Europeans were no worse at that, just more successful.
    I don't blame Europe for all of Africa's problems. Though colonialism did have negative effects

  10. #30
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    298

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Exactly how many universities were there in the Congo before the Belgiums? None. How many printing presses? None either. The printing press existed for 4 hundred years before Belgium colonized the Congo, yet in all that time the people of the Congo never got around to adopting it. The lack of education in Congo is as much the blame as the people of the Congo. Universities in Europe, like Oxford and Cambridge, were more than 500 years old before the Belgiums conquered the Congo, so the lack of universities isn't all the fault of Belgium.
    Interestingly enough, the Congo or more specifically the Kingdom of the Kongo was perhaps the first region in Sub Saharan Africa to have received the printing press during the 1490s[1][2] just after its then king, Joao I had converted to Catholicism by Portuguese missionaries even before Abyssinia/Ethiopia which might have only gotten it around the 1500s[3]. Not to mention the country had a sort of an educational system implemented for the nobility that was perhaps based off the Portuguese model[4]. But I don't think the printing press there lasted that long considering that the local diseases would have made it hard for any European operating it to stay in the country for very long before the mid 19th century and that books often had to imported through Portugal, thus it remained a sort of a rare, expensive commodity. Also that the Kingdom of the Kongo had suffered several civil wars and multiple wars with Portugal during the 17th century that saw its capital M'banza-Kongo/São Salvador sacked multiple times and causing its previously centralised government to mostly collapse in favour of a much more decentralised model based around the village, wouldn't have helped in getting any university established there, despite its heavy Portuguese influence[5].

    Sources
    1.(1969) Four Centuries of Portuguese Expansion, 1415-1825: A Succinct Survey pg 88 by Charles Ralph Boxer
    2.(2001) Medieval Africa 1250-1800 pg 177 by Rolan Oliver and Anthony Atmore
    3.(2004)History of Mathematical Sciences: Portugal and East Asia II - Scientific Practises and the Portuguese Expansion in Asia (1498-1759) pg 88 by Saraiva Luis M R
    4.(2018) The Kongo Kingdom: The Origins, Dynamics and Cosmopolitan Culture of an African Polity pg 223 by Koen Bostoen and Inge Brinkman
    5.Kingdom of Kongo 1390 – 1914, South Africa History Online

    Also I'm very skeptical of your claim that the borders have changed that much due to Africans in general accepting them, considering that African governments mostly crack down quite hard on separatist movements simply because they did not want lose valuable resources that provided a major income for their country or their own personal coffers like what happened in Sudan and Cabinda in Angola. Not to mention tribalism is very rampant in many African countries even in ethnically homogeneous ones such as Somalia and Libya. The former has essentially become a de facto confederation comprised of 5 different regional states not including Somaliland that enjoy a lot of autonomy and the latter has been a collection of rival governments, city states and tribes since the outbreak of its 2nd civil war in 2014. Another example of the borders not being redrawn due to the government or ruler not liking to give up land is Haftar's current offensive against the Tripoli government. Even though he could have ruled rather comfortably just Cyrenaica with the backing of Egypt and the local autonomist movement, Haftar instead has set his eye on controlling the entirety of Libya, why, to make himself more powerful. Back to Somalia, the fact that these states based on clan lines have emerged despite how strong Somali nationalism was during the mid-late 20th century and that large Kongolese separatist/autonomist movements such as ABAKO and Bundu Dia Kongo* have existed since the 1950s decades after the Kongolese kingdom was extinguished in 1914, suggest that old pre-colonial ethnic identities can lye dormant until that group is alienated with their government, thus I wouldn't be exactly surprised if a Beninese/Edo separatist movement emerges during the next few decades in Nigeria considering that the monarchy of the old Benin kingdom still exists and that Biafra had briefly set up a puppet state there, the Republic of Benin.

    *Just to warn any people who want to research more into BDK, its more or less a religious cult.

    Not really a fan of the opening post though, looks like clickbait meant to provoke a flame war
    Last edited by RandomPerson2000; June 20, 2019 at 08:11 AM.

  11. #31
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,511

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    If we treat non-whites so badly
    So Basil, colonialism was great, colonialism is good,and diversity is good...when you are in charge.




    I know from where you are coming from:Bruce Gilley has published an infamous Case for Colonialism by Bruce ... - National Association of Scholars published in the Third World Quarterly.
    He says that anti-colonialism is a destructive, irrational, and irrational "ideology" that should be abandoned. What's more, he says- like you said-we need a new program of colonization, with Western powers taking over the governing functions of less developed countries.
    You and your friend Gilley deliberately excluded deliberately excluded mention of every single atrocity committed by colonial powers.Gilley (and you too) restricts his examination to "the early 19's to mid-20th centuries" (sic). Why are you both doing that? that's because in the first 300 years of Portuguese, Dutch, British, French colonialism it would be almost impossible to mount any kind of case that the endeavor benefited indigenous populations.

    Isn't colonialism great?




    --

    Another great, indispensable source is J. K.Thornton.THORNTON, John - Memórias de África e do Oriente - Universidade
    Last edited by Ludicus; June 20, 2019 at 10:28 AM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

  12. #32
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,324

    Default Re: Effects of Colonialism on Africa

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    [QUOTE=Common Soldier;15801902]
    Quote Originally Posted by saxdude View Post
    Cherry picked period in history, The Brazilian Military Dictatorship, the Argentinian Dirty War, and the colorado faction of the Paraguayan civil war, were all directly supported by the US and have had lasting effects on the development of all three countries. It's kind of silly to point at a period in history were independant powerful nations waged war at each other and say "See! Without colonial powers they're every bit as bad!" Nevermind that the nations themselves are a direct result of colonialism. [/Quote@]

    Contrary to what you claim, Latin America was not paradise on Earth before the US meddle in the affairs. The mess in Venuzuala is not of the US making, and as I said, the Paraguay War of the Triple Alliance which resulted in perhaps half the population of Paraguay being killed wasn't ether. Latin America was full of dictators long before the US was actively involved. I don't like or agree with much of the CIA actions, any more than I agree with the CIA giving it's own personnel LSD without consent or being informed. But I think you are deluding yourself if all or even most of the problems of the Latin American countries would have disappeared if the US had stayed out of its affairs. The US expolitdd maybe these corrupt governments to its own advantage perhaps, but it didn't create them, although it might be guilty as you said in hindering efforts of reforms. The problems of Latin America date back to Spanish and Portuege colonial times nd as I said, these dictators and corrupt government existed before the US was active on the scene. It is not cherry picking to point that out, what you are doing is as much cherry picking as you assert to me. If you are saying that the US should not have gotten invovled they way it did, I will agree, but the problems predates the US active inovlrment. It is not cherry picking to point out the War of the Triple Alliance was a local affair, of which the US was not the cause or invovled. How much h better off Latin America would benefit if the US stay d out of it is impossible to say.
    Outside of the wars of independance, there wasn't a period in time were Latin America wasn't actively being interfered with by the USA. Almost every single dictatorship has either been tacitly supported by the USA, or full on supported by the USA or an American supported regime. Even if I decided to lay off Americans entirely, you can find the French, British, and even/specially the Soviets taking some part in steering the way of Latin American politics.
    In the grand scheme of things, the war of the Triple Alliance stands as an exception rather than a rule to latin american political relationships.

    any more than I agree with the CIA giving it's own personnel LSD without consent or being informed
    I would hope so, since what the CIA has done in Latin America is orders of magnitudes worse than giving some of it's workers one of the least adictive and harmful drugs in the world.

    The US expolitdd maybe these corrupt governments to its own advantage perhaps, but it didn't create them, although it might be guilty as you said in hindering efforts of reforms
    All you're doing is illustrating you're lack of knowledge on Latin American history, which is most unfortunate since it's probably the single most important regional studies subject in America right now, what with the US being entirely responsible for the migratory mess it's in right now.
    "Exploiting these corrupt goverments" is tantamount to saying Americans created them. The USA obviously didn't materialize Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, etc. out of thin air, population to subjugate in tow and with a right wing facist dictatorships running the place; In the best of cases they allow allowed and actively support supported acts of bribery, lobbying and intimidation from american based corporations, in the worst the US has armed paramilitary groups, ousted democratically elected goverments, defended and financed genocidal regimes, defined economic policies and basically steered latin america into what it is now.

    Yeah Latin America has it's own share of the blame but it's hard to argue that the US hasn't gone and made every problem a thousand times worse.

    The problems of Latin America date back to Spanish and Portuege colonial times
    Effects of Colonialism
    ----------------

    Colonism did not create the issues of high infant mortality, lack of literacy and the rest. If you are ok with infant mortality running at 25%, then Africa had no problem. I happen to disagree with you, and in any case, it is these issue that Europeans are blames for. If they are a peblem now, then you can't claim they were not issues before. Just because people might not know any better, that doesn't mean it was there was not problems.
    Yeah, you don't solve high infant mortality, lack of literacy and "all the rest", with slavery, genocide, institutional violence, segregation, racism, relocation, arbitrary political boundries and so forth. Like... Yeah, there was high infant mortality in precolonial Africa, so what? We aren't talking about institutional negligence and enormous wealth disparity causing these mortality cases, that's just the life expectancy of pre-industrial agricultural societies, especially with pre-industrial hunter gatherer societies. Ultimately what you're saying is that the european powers came, fixed none of the problems and made everything else actively worse. Now globalism and the upwards curve of technological progress are starting to patch out the issues and you want to say it was thanks to colonialism? Come on.

    The Zulus expanded into south Africa in conquest that shed some amount of blood, where the Europeans were not invovled. Africa had its own native empires that rose and fell long before the Europeans were on the scene, and the conquest of these empires were not always peaceful.
    Again, so what? What is this absurd line of argument that because most societies partake in violence it means all acts of violence, no matter the scale or context, are irreproachable? Nobody is under the illusion Africa was some kind utopic eden, but there is a magnitude of difference between what the Zulu did in southern Africa to what colonial powers did to the entirety of Africa. The scale is simply incomparable and the effects of one have had larger and longer overarching affects on the lives of the people in the continent than what the other could have ever hoped to achieve.

    It like what I read somewhere - stealing from a helpless blind man may be despicable, but it was the man being blind and helpless that allowed one to steal from him...it is quite another thing to claim as you do that they made the man blind and helpless in the first place.
    I
    Yeah, he was still robbed dude. What kind of point are you trying to make here?

    You got it backwards - it was the success of the Europeans in the first place that allowed them to screw people over as you say...
    Snip, snap, snop
    Yeah that's a pretty fantastical romantic view of european history you're having, mate. Forgive me if I roll my eyes at the suggestion that the battle of Tours was some instrumental victory in staving off a colonialized Europe? Also the battle of Lechfield was won by the Magyars so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    I find it equally annoying to claim that events centuries in the future were responsible for the success of the Europeans in the past.
    Good thing the only one that is claiming that is you. What I am saying though is that the modern european way of life that Basil is so proud of was financed through the exploitation of the very people he has the gall to about, not because "newton made the laws of gravity" or because "Gutenburg invented the printing press". But everything from the flow of capital, resources and goods that came from the conquest of the new world, to the cheap or free labour from the exploitation of native americans and africans, to the flow of spices from India, to the selling of Opium to the Chinese, to the privatization of national resources from emerging countries. All of it contributed and now contributes to your comfy way of life.

    So it's kind of hard to swallow when a super duper great not at all anything offensive person like Basil starts going on about how great colonialism was and how stupid these black and brown people have been at managing their own countries, LOL.

    I ain't jokin' when it comes to mah paintings ಠ_ಠ

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •