|
Post by berschneider on Apr 11, 2004 12:09:39 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. I agree 100% - except that I believe that populations of colonial powers - Portugal, France or Belgium would not have tolerated integration of colonies as overseas provinces whose citizens would have had equal rights, such as right of residence in the metropoly. If some sort of compromise could have been found, then of course colonial administration would have be much better than what we have today in Africa and would be acceptable to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Apr 11, 2004 12:30:29 GMT -5
Black Africans are very much like children. They can be disciplined and directed into productive activity. What is unspeakably imoral and cruel is to give a child "freedom" prematurely and then ostracize him for not knowing how to behave properly. That is what the USA and USSR did to Africa over the last 40 years. They "campaigned for freedom" (in the case of the USA using terrorism, deception and treachery against their anti-communist allies such as Portugal) and now they refuse to clean up the mess they are largely responsible for.
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Apr 11, 2004 12:46:09 GMT -5
Portugal considered its African provinces as integral parts of the nation and not as territories under Portuguese administration. This is a significant detail given the UN´s anti-colonial "crusade" which refused to recognize this fact, claiming that the Portuguese territories were subject to some UN charter regarding territories under foreign administration. The same occured with South West Africa, which was considered by South Africa to be an integral part of South African territory and therefore not subject to the same UN charter.
In practice, the various Portuguese overseas provinces were subject to the Overseas ministry in Lisbon. They each had independant currencies issued by the Banco Nacional Ultramarino and Portugal imposed travel and immigration restrictions between the various provinces and metropolitan Portugal. Before 1974, Portugal was a land of emigration and not imigration so the question of African immigrants into metropolitan Portugal did not exist. Angola and Mozambique served to absorb a large portion of Portugal´s annual emigration which would otherwise flow into foreign countries.
I believe that a continued presence of Belgium, France and Portugal in Africa would have in fact eased the rate of African emigration to Europe given the working infrastructure and stable economies in all of the European colonies. Africans would have opportunities to develop themselves in Africa. Also, in the French and especially in the Portuguese colonies there was a general acceptance of educated and europeanized Africans into the local colonial society. This fact prevented many of the social tensions which existed in highly segregated societies, ie. South Africa, Rhodesia. Despite an enormous social-economic gap between the white inhabitants and the native population, Lourenço Marques in the 1960s was easygoing and virtually crime free.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Apr 11, 2004 14:09:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 11, 2004 17:21:28 GMT -5
Thank you for the link. I read through the essay and other essays by the same author and he is no Montaigne. I won’t write a long critique of what this “literature” is about but it’s pretty much garbage not worth discussing. Waste of time and bandwidth. This is the genre of a bitching exile – of émigré Iranians in the United States who call upon their adopted evil Fatherland to attack Iran, of emigrants from the USSR, mainly Jewish, who made Russophobia a hobby, of anti-Semitic Jews, of self-hating foreign Germans and of course of many white migrants from South Africa who must prove their extra militant conservatism (and I am no lefty by any means) but sometimes are forced to mask their racism. I met a few of those revolting species here in Europe and even in the US. On the other hand, I have close friends, white South Africans, who know that part of Africa very well (one of my friends served in South African special forces in the late 80s), and while they were absolutely sure of catastrophe after black takeover (or the democratic revolution if you want to call it that away), and left SA, and stayed in Europe for several years, they have returned. In their opinion, it can go either way – get much better or descend straight into hell. I am a bit familiar with Africa myself and I understand it is a mess. I also tend to agree with Silveira that colonialism was for the most part good for both Africans and the colonialists.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 11, 2004 17:24:31 GMT -5
Portugal considered its African provinces as integral parts of the nation and not as territories under Portuguese administration. This is a significant detail given the UN´s anti-colonial "crusade" which refused to recognize this fact, claiming that the Portuguese territories were subject to some UN charter regarding territories under foreign administration. The same occured with South West Africa, which was considered by South Africa to be an integral part of South African territory and therefore not subject to the same UN charter. In practice, the various Portuguese overseas provinces were subject to the Overseas ministry in Lisbon. They each had independant currencies issued by the Banco Nacional Ultramarino and Portugal imposed travel and immigration restrictions between the various provinces and metropolitan Portugal. Before 1974, Portugal was a land of emigration and not imigration so the question of African immigrants into metropolitan Portugal did not exist. Angola and Mozambique served to absorb a large portion of Portugal´s annual emigration which would otherwise flow into foreign countries. I believe that a continued presence of Belgium, France and Portugal in Africa would have in fact eased the rate of African emigration to Europe given the working infrastructure and stable economies in all of the European colonies. Africans would have opportunities to develop themselves in Africa. Also, in the French and especially in the Portuguese colonies there was a general acceptance of educated and europeanized Africans into the local colonial society. This fact prevented many of the social tensions which existed in highly segregated societies, ie. South Africa, Rhodesia. Despite an enormous social-economic gap between the white inhabitants and the native population, Lourenço Marques in the 1960s was easygoing and virtually crime free. I have to agree with what you wrote here. I didn't know that Portugal considered African colonies its overseas provinces, and not merely colonies, although I was aware that Portuguese colonial practices were benevolent and enlightened.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Apr 11, 2004 17:52:06 GMT -5
Thank you for the link. I read through the essay and other essays by the same author and he is no Montaigne. I won’t write a long critique of what this “literature” is about but it’s pretty much garbage not worth discussing. Waste of time and bandwidth. This is the genre of a bitching exile – of émigré Iranians in the United States who call upon their adopted evil Fatherland to attack Iran, of emigrants from the USSR, mainly Jewish, who made Russophobia a hobby, of anti-Semitic Jews, of self-hating foreign Germans and of course of many white migrants from South Africa who must prove their extra militant conservatism (and I am no lefty by any means) but sometimes are forced to mask their racism. I met a few of those revolting species here in Europe and even in the US. On the other hand, I have close friends, white South Africans, who know that part of Africa very well (one of my friends served in South African special forces in the late 80s), and while they were absolutely sure of catastrophe after black takeover (or the democratic revolution if you want to call it that away), and left SA, and stayed in Europe for several years, they have returned. In their opinion, it can go either way – get much better or descend straight into hell. I am a bit familiar with Africa myself and I understand it is a mess. I also tend to agree with Silveira that colonialism was for the most part good for both Africans and the colonialists. I understand that Du Toit opposed Apartheid , went to jail and left the country before the old system collapsed. He may be no Montaigne but he knows what he´s talking about.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 11, 2004 18:12:58 GMT -5
I understand that Du Toit opposed Apartheid , went to jail and left the country before the old system collapsed. He may be no Montaigne but he knows what he´s talking about. Right, he mentions his jail stay in the introductory piece. I glanced through several “essays,” - so what? I know people who supported regime to the end, left South Africa, declared all is lost, cried we are undone, and have now returned and are doing pretty well for themselves. Thank you. This Essayist (Not Montaigne) makes several points in that particular piece. One is that there are crocodiles in Africa and that the life is dangerous there. Indeed that is true. Presence of weird diseases and bad climate (from the standpoint of settlers from temperate Europe) may have prevented Africa from being colonized the same way America was. Human life in Africa is considered worthless. African atrocities may be breathtaking but certainly Africans are far more civilized and have greater respect for human life than does US government and its owners. Anything that is done to help Africa is waste. Piecemeal food aid is of little use and most of it gets stolen as it would get stolen anywhere under similar circumstances. Agreed. Generally, I am not against the notion of having nature run its course and letting people take care of their own problems without interference under most circumstances (for example, Yugoslavs should have been allowed to sort out their problems without outside interference. On the other hand I am certain that those Yugoslav problems were of foreign manufacture and external origin). Africa is a different case though. Having poor, backward Africa as a breeding ground for violence and new diseases (which if “exported” may attack whites too. Diseases rarely discriminate) is not in anyone’s interest.
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Apr 12, 2004 7:47:20 GMT -5
Well, lets look at mr. du Toit´s biographical note:
OK. Anti-apartheid "activist" who emigrated to the USA in 1986. Interestingly, there is no mention of having done National Military Service in South Africa. Did he run off to the USA to avoid certain obligations??
Married to third wife, atheist, NRA gun freak. We can conclude that this gentleman´s opinion is somewhat compromised by his personal track record...
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Apr 12, 2004 8:08:32 GMT -5
He did serve in the SA Army. Other than that, you´re free to e-mail him since you seem so interested in his private life. ;D I thought his essay was worth reading.
|
|
|
Post by TutanKa on Apr 12, 2004 8:59:37 GMT -5
I might be wrong in my opinion, but Africa reminds me of a medieval time, but mixed with a modern world. On one hand, you have the very poor, uneducated whose only means to survival is farming (in some parts of Africa) and then on the other hand, you have the rich leaders, who don't have any respect for their people, who will murder their own mother to get more wealth and comfort for themselves. The people, often victimised, are powerless, unless they like being chopped to piece or tortured. But then, many Africans look around, and they see that the western world has such a thing as democracy, where people are not victimised or bullied, so when they finally stand up for themselves, with the belief they have a right to do so, then havoc ensues.
I have met many African people, they are not backwards and they don't have a child-like mentality. They live in an environment that does not allow for the freedoms we have, through violence or volatile environments and hunger.
As for their future? I think they'll be around a long time after the West has imploded, for various reasons. Living simple lives maybe, but still around nonetheless...
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 12, 2004 9:42:08 GMT -5
He did serve in the SA Army. Other than that, you´re free to e-mail him since you seem so interested in his private life. ;D I thought his essay was worth reading. Who cares about his personal life? The great émigré South-African/naturalized American essayist brags about his atheism, gun worship, and number of wives he had right on the first page - so you can't miss that. Otherwise, he does sound very biased and *not* extraordinarily smart. No intellectual revelations of any sort are to be found in that kind of literature.
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Apr 12, 2004 9:51:14 GMT -5
Despite any bias one may have towards his personal options, I think that it can be safely stated that his articles are mostly devised for anti-liberal "shock" value. Most people would be shocked at the degree of perceived "political-incorrectness" of what he has to say. This is perhaps simply a device for this rather untalented author to gain public attention. He is only one or two notches above Ed Anger of the prestigious «Weekly World News».<br> www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/anger.cfm
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 12, 2004 10:00:43 GMT -5
I might be wrong in my opinion, but Africa reminds me of a medieval time, but mixed with a modern world. On one hand, you have the very poor, uneducated whose only means to survival is farming (in some parts of Africa) and then on the other hand, you have the rich leaders, who don't have any respect for their people, who will murder their own mother to get more wealth and comfort for themselves. The people, often victimised, are powerless, unless they like being chopped to piece or tortured. But then, many Africans look around, and they see that the western world has such a thing as democracy, where people are not victimised or bullied, so when they finally stand up for themselves, with the belief they have a right to do so, then havoc ensues. I have met many African people, they are not backwards and they don't have a child-like mentality. They live in an environment that does not allow for the freedoms we have, through violence or volatile environments and hunger. As for their future? I think they'll be around a long time after the West has imploded, for various reasons. Living simple lives maybe, but still around nonetheless... I don't believe Silveira meant that adult Africans have mental capacity of a child. What he meant was that people who grew up in simple, to us primitive conditions, as well as tribal societies were not prepared, as children would not be, for a modern world, and easily became pawns in superpower struggle from which they cannot easily recover. As of your comments about West's longevity and its future chances. I am not sure about that. If by west you mean United States, then in my opinion that society has no future no matter how prosperous or powerful it may temporarily appear. On the hand, if you look at Finland you have a society, which is European, developed, formerly agricultural and poor, located in unfavorable climate, that is actually taking care of itself quite nicely under free market conditions while displaying strong solidarity between members of the society. Cleptocratic African style leaders are unimaginable in Finland (and Finland here is just an example). Africa needs more solidarity among Africans and better education, and less weapons, and may be sounds offensive, but it may need outside interference to set it straight. I agree with your comments that in all other respects Africans are totally normal people.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 12, 2004 10:03:09 GMT -5
Despite any bias one may have towards his personal options, I think that it can be safely stated that his articles are mostly devised for anti-liberal "shock" value. Most people would be shocked at the degree of perceived "political-incorrectness" of what he has to say. This is perhaps simply a device for this rather untalented author to gain public attention. He is only one or two notches above Ed Anger of the prestigious «Weekly World News».<br> www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/anger.cfmagreed
|
|