|
Post by berschneider on Apr 10, 2004 14:18:02 GMT -5
Does Africa have a future? I am now watching the Killers, a haunting BBC documentary about Rwandan genocide. It’s actually worse than most horror movies. Horrible stuff (and it was the perfect case for justifiable intervention).
I never realized the extent of black on black racism in Africa. It’s even worse than the subracial idiocy in Europe (which I never heard of it before finding these discussion boards).
With Rwanda experience, AIDS, genocide, wars, tribalism, internal racism, what is the future of Africa?
Does it have a future? How can outside world help Africa to become prosperous, stable and self-sufficient?
|
|
Scoob
Full Member
Posts: 157
|
Post by Scoob on Apr 10, 2004 15:49:30 GMT -5
Well if current African populations wipe themselves out with wars, famine, and disease - then it would be a wonderful opportunity for Western colonial expansion that could revitalize the economies of all nations involved.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Apr 10, 2004 15:55:44 GMT -5
Well if current African populations wipe themselves out with wars, famine, and disease - then it would be a wonderful opportunity for Western colonial expansion that could revitalize the economies of all nations involved. That's a horrible opportunity to expect. I've heard that the reports of AIDs 'wiping out Africa' have been greatly exaggerated by the media, though.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 10, 2004 16:20:56 GMT -5
Well if current African populations wipe themselves out with wars, famine, and disease - then it would be a wonderful opportunity for Western colonial expansion that could revitalize the economies of all nations involved. That's a pretty vicious thing to say, I think Africa needs a boost in education, basic skills development, and economy. Some countries may require outside takeover for stabilization purposes though.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Apr 10, 2004 16:36:36 GMT -5
I think Africa needs a boost in education, basic skills development, and economy. Some countries may require outside takeover for stabilization purposes though. Then you have to agree that putting such an early end to European colonialism was indeed a bad idea. Is Africa better off now than in 1960?
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 10, 2004 17:00:25 GMT -5
Then you have to agree that putting such an early end to European colonialism was indeed a bad idea. Is Africa better off now than in 1960? Yes and no. If it meant more migration from colonies in the long run then bailing out wasn't too bad an idea (but bad enough for Africa), if there was a way to keep economic migrants out, then it would have been better to keep colonial administration for longer, may be even until today. Also (sub-Saharan) Africa could have been turned into one common market (with no internal trade barriers) and also opened to exports from the EU and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Apr 10, 2004 17:37:39 GMT -5
Yes and no. If it meant more migration from colonies in the long run then bailing out wasn't too bad an idea (but bad enough for Africa), if there was a way to keep economic migrants out, then it would have been better to keep colonial administration for longer, may be even until today. Also (sub-Saharan) Africa could have been turned into one common market (with no internal trade barriers) and also opened to exports from the EU and vice versa. Colonialism for me only means migratory movements from the metropoly to the colonies, not vice-versa. Multicularism and race-mixing were alive and well in the European Colonies.. Makes you wonder why modern leftists are so hostile against colonialism. Both Africa and Europe would be better off if colonies were still in place. You have to blame the Cold War for that.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 10, 2004 18:01:09 GMT -5
Colonialism for me only means migratory movements from the metropoly to the colonies, not vice-versa. Multicularism and race-mixing were alive and well in the European Colonies.. Makes you wonder why modern leftists are so hostile against colonialism. Both Africa and Europe would be better off if colonies were still in place. You have to blame the Cold War for that. May be you are right - but you could "graduate" Africa, as a Federation, to more or less independent status. It would be silly for them to remain colonies forever. The point would have been to have a stable, peaceful, developing Africa that is a partner of Europe, not a source of raw materials of dubious value (most likely had they remained colonies the "exploitation" busines would have become a financial drain on the metropolies already by mid 1980s) or the bloody mess it is now. In any case, I think something should be done about Africa. The entire world is developing and we should not leave Africa behind.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Apr 10, 2004 18:19:32 GMT -5
May be you are right - but you could "graduate" Africa, as a Federation, to more or less independent status. It would be silly for them to remain colonies forever. The point would have been to have a stable, peaceful, developing Africa that is a partner of Europe, not a source of raw materials of dubious value (most likely had they remained colonies the "exploitation" busines would have become a financial drain on the metropolies already by mid 1980s) or the bloody mess it is now. In any case, I think something should be done about Africa. The entire world is developing and we should not leave Africa behind. A couple of centuries is not "forever". European rule only began in earnest after the Berlin Treaty, 1885 I believe. We had to pack less than 80 years after that. Colonisation and civilizing had barely started when we were kicked out of the place. It was a terrible mistake: colonial rule should have been in place a further century or so. We do not owe them anything. If they are happy left to themselves as they are now, I say let them suffer their own decision! Although admitedly de-colonization had more to do with geopolitics and the Cold War (USA and USSR) and maybe the local "elite" than popular decision. If you ask me, a stable, peaceful developing sub-saharan Africa is an oxymoron! Not in our lifetimes!
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 10, 2004 18:38:13 GMT -5
A couple of centuries is not "forever". European rule only began in earnest after the Berlin Treaty, 1885 I believe. We had to pack less than 80 years after that. Colonisation and civilizing had barely started when we were kicked out of the place. It was a terrible mistake: colonial rule should have been in place a further century or so. We do not owe them anything. If they are happy left to themselves as they are now, I say let them suffer their own decision! Although admitedly de-colonization had more to do with geopolitics and the Cold War (USA and USSR) and maybe the local "elite" than popular decision. If you ask me, a stable, peaceful developing sub-saharan Africa is an oxymoron! Not in our lifetimes! You are right to a certain degree, except that populations of African states did not make any decisions on their own. Such notions as human rights, racial equality, responsibility of a state to all its subject, including those who are overseas, may sound silly but these notions are mainly of European origin. Cold war rivalry or not, by the 1980s public opinion would have made keeping old style colonies in Africa simply impossible. South Africa was pressured to dismantle apartheid (they wouldn't have done it on their own) by outsiders, and pressure intensified right after the end of the so called Cold War. South Africa was a colonial regime of sorts from within. I don't believe that Africa is hopeless but I think a more concerted international effort is needed to pull it out of the swamp. South Africa can become the development model (if it wants to) and the African (mini) super power.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Apr 10, 2004 19:12:13 GMT -5
You are right to a certain degree, except that populations of African states did not make any decisions on their own. Such notions as human rights, racial equality, responsibility of a state to all its subject, including those who are overseas, may sound silly but these notions are mainly of European origin. Cold war rivalry or not, by the 1980s public opinion would have made keeping old style colonies in Africa simply impossible. South Africa was pressured to dismantle apartheid (they wouldn't have done it on their own) by outsiders, and pressure intensified right after the end of the so called Cold War. South Africa was a colonial regime of sorts from within. I don't believe that Africa is hopeless but I think a more concerted international effort is needed to pull it out of the swamp. South Africa can become the development model (if it wants to) and the African (mini) super power. The public opinion you refer to was simply Marxist propaganda coupled with US anti-colonialism (which was just envy in disguise). If not for the Cold War and the USA-USSR power struggle and dash for European colonies, the former European colonial order would have gone on forever. The better for Africa, I may add. Not for the money-grabbing local cleptocracies, but certainly for the vast majority of Africans. They so long for their old rulers, that Africans now flock to Europe! S.A. Apartheid had nothing to do with colonial rule, it was more of a post-colonial polity.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 11, 2004 8:11:39 GMT -5
The public opinion you refer to was simply Marxist propaganda coupled with US anti-colonialism (which was just envy in disguise). If not for the Cold War and the USA-USSR power struggle and dash for European colonies, the former European colonial order would have gone on forever. The better for Africa, I may add. Not for the money-grabbing local cleptocracies, but certainly for the vast majority of Africans. They so long for their old rulers, that Africans now flock to Europe! S.A. Apartheid had nothing to do with colonial rule, it was more of a post-colonial polity. You may be right although I have my own doubts about that. On the other hand, colonial administration is preferrable to the genocide of the kind that took place in Rwanda. Should African states abandon political independence in exchange for stability and prosperity? Should they be stripped of independence?
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Apr 11, 2004 11:48:51 GMT -5
What you say is very true. The cold war competition between the USA and the USSR as well as pressures from the so-called "Afro-Asiatic" bloc, led by nations such as India and Indonesia, all worked in favour of African "independance". I use this term with quotation marks because Africa is now more dependant than ever. I think that in the 1960s both the USSR and the USA had very little understanding of the realities of Africa and the Africans due to their total lack of experience in administrating African territories. They took advantage of the newely emerged tiny group of educated native Africans and fueled their envy and hatred of the colonial nations in order to more readily gain access to Africa´s mineral wealth. It is much easier for western governments to negotiate for mining rights and the like with some corrupt black despot who would trade half his country for a fleet of Mercedes than with serious statesmen such as Salazar or Ian Smith. One exception to this general tendency was Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi. Banda was an exceptional black man and a great friend of Portugal. There is an elephant at the Lisbon Zoo which rings a bell when you give it a coin that was a gift of President Banda to Portugal. In contrast, most of the African leaders backed by the USA or USSR ended up going insane, usually becoming cruel megalomaniacs. This is true both for the communist variety (José Eduardo dos Santos, Robert Mugabe, etc.) as well as the anti-communist variety (Emperor Bokassa, Jonas Savimbi, etc.)
With relation to the concept of "independance", Oliveira Salazar stated quite correctly in the 1960s that Angola and Mozambique were already truely independant, being integral provinces of a nation which has been independant for over 8 centuries.
|
|
Scoob
Full Member
Posts: 157
|
Post by Scoob on Apr 11, 2004 11:53:26 GMT -5
That's a pretty vicious thing to say, No, vicious would be to send infected "humanitarian aide" supplies to Africans, waiting for them to die, and taking their land. It's been done before, with great success. Africa is a good continent for vicious acts, as the natives demonstrate each time a news story comes to press about a "modern" leader eating his rivals, villagers slaughtering preadolescents accused of "witchcraft", or the violence and bloodshed that is a fact of everyday life there. But Africa needn't be a vicious place. It has lots of areas with nice climates that modern technology and enterprising people could adapt to quite well. I think Africa needs some new people living there.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 11, 2004 12:05:20 GMT -5
No, vicious would be to send infected "humanitarian aide" supplies to Africans, waiting for them to die, and taking their land. It's been done before, with great success. Africa is a good continent for vicious acts, as the natives demonstrate each time a news story comes to press about a "modern" leader eating his rivals, villagers slaughtering preadolescents accused of "witchcraft", or the violence and bloodshed that is a fact of everyday life there. But Africa needn't be a vicious place. It has lots of areas with nice climates that modern technology and enterprising people could adapt to quite well. I think Africa needs some new people living there. You mean Africans are biologically defective and are unfit to take care of themselves?
|
|