By poor I mean the general standard of living.
I have heard before that Africa is 'the most mineral rich continent in the world'. While I find proving this seems to be exceedingly difficult (if even possible), I would at least concede that, in terms of mineral wealth, the African continent is probably no worse off than any of the others ...
So what gives? Why do I see TV personalities selling the plight of these starving people? Are Africans really unable to develop any sort of infrastructure to provide basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and medicine?
Southern: Im not sure it is circular, if the problem were circular then no society could have become weathly.
Im not sure it is circular, if the problem were circular then no society could have become weathly.
One thing helped Europeans become wealthy: conquest by more advanced powers forced them to change or die.
The threat of conquest is what forced Japan and China to modernize.
If your society is stuck in a circle of poverty, you have to import a new society,
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Southern: Im not sure it is circular, if the problem were circular then no society could have become weathly. One thing helped Europeans become wealthy: conquest by more advanced powers forced them to change or die. The threat of conquest is what forced Japan and China to modernize. If your society is stuck in a circle of poverty, you have to import a new society,
But in order to modernize (aka accumulate capital) they had to divert some of their production away from consumption to investment. These were poor people yet they did so. The threat of conquest prompted Japan and China to adopt new technologies and ideas, while the threat to Africa lead to realatively unchanged societies and eventual conquest.
Even the native americans of North America adapted to the threat of European conquest. They adopted horses, firearms, and (in some cases) different political structures to resist. Ultimately they lost the battle of demographics but even they (who were further behind Africa technologicly) adapted and changed. Africa has been much slower to change than any other group.
Southern: But in order to modernize (aka accumulate capital) they had to divert some of their production away from consumption to investment. These were poor people yet they did so. The threat of conquest prompted Japan and China to adopt new technologies and ideas, while the threat to Africa lead to realatively unchanged societies and eventual conquest. Even the native americans of North America adapted to the threat of European conquest. They adopted horses, firearms, and (in some cases) different political structures to resist. Ultimately they lost the battle of demographics but even they (who were further behind Africa technologicly) adapted and changed. Africa has been much slower to change than any other group.
Resistance to Europeans was more successful in Africa than in America by far.
Marko: Southern: But in order to modernize (aka accumulate capital) they had to divert some of their production away from consumption to investment. These were poor people yet they did so. The threat of conquest prompted Japan and China to adopt new technologies and ideas, while the threat to Africa lead to realatively unchanged societies and eventual conquest. Even the native americans of North America adapted to the threat of European conquest. They adopted horses, firearms, and (in some cases) different political structures to resist. Ultimately they lost the battle of demographics but even they (who were further behind Africa technologicly) adapted and changed. Africa has been much slower to change than any other group. Resistance to Europeans was more successful in Africa than in America by far.
Agreed tropical diseases made the colonization of Africa very difficult for europeans (the temperate regions in South Africa were colonized early on), while european diseases made it very difficult to stop colonization for native americans. Even after colonization in the 19th century european populations never grew very large in the tropical regions. But the point was not how successful resistance was, but that other populations adapted relatively quickly, while Africa was slower to do so.
Southern: Agreed tropical diseases made the colonization of Africa very difficult for europeans (the temperate regions in South Africa were colonized early on), while european diseases made it very difficult to stop colonization for native americans. Even after colonization in the 19th century european populations never grew very large in the tropical regions. But the point was not how successful resistance was, but that other populations adapted relatively quickly, while Africa was slower to do so.
Europeans were driven out not by tropical disease but by wars of decolonialization. The examples you used were horse and gunpowder but the horse is largely useless in Africa while rifles weren't made their own by Indians until centuries after Cortez and Pizarro.It would seem Africans were slower to adopt firearms than you would expect but this has to be weighted with the fact that de facto European control over Africa was to some extent always fictitious with only the coastal areas fully incorporated while the tribes inland had minimal contact with Europeans, and with colonial authorities.
Marko:Europeans were driven out not by tropical disease but by wars of decolonialization.
I assumed when you talked about resistance to colonialism you meant the initial conquest of Africa and the Americas. The tropical diseases is what made it difficult to initially establish control over Africa and the Old world diseases is what made it particularly easy to establish control over the Amercias. As far as the end of colonialism in Africa (and the world for that matter), it had as much to do with the Europeans exhausting themselves fighting one another in two world wars than the native populations.
Marko:The examples you used were horse and gunpowder but the horse is largely useless in Africa while rifles weren't made their own by Indians until centuries after Cortez and Pizarro.
The horse and gunpowder were examples of things adopted by native americans to illistrate the point that other groups adapted much more quickly than Africa. Nothing more (maybe they were weak examples). This is a pattern still present today.
Marko:It would seem Africans were slower to adopt firearms than you would expect but this has to be weighted with the fact that de facto European control over Africa was to some extent always fictitious with only the coastal areas fully incorporated while the tribes inland had minimal contact with Europeans, and with colonial authorities.
This was true of most of North America up untill the late 1700 to 1800s. The point remains Africa was much slower to adapt than the rest of the world (Politically, Economicly, Socially, ect.) Its hard to argue otherwise. Africa has been left behind.
Southern:I assumed when you talked about resistance to colonialism you meant the initial conquest of Africa and the Americas.
Europeans suffered many setbacks in the process of conquest as well. But resistance yes I meant as a whole. It is important to take it as such because it makes it obvious that, unlike with the Americas, the resistance of Africans was actually successful in the end. So they either enhanced their methods of resistance just fine, or they did not have a great need to do so in the first place. You can't argue with success.
Southern: As far as the end of colonialism in Africa (and the world for that matter), it had as much to do with the Europeans exhausting themselves fighting one another in two world wars than the native populations.
As far as the end of colonialism in Africa (and the world for that matter), it had as much to do with the Europeans exhausting themselves fighting one another in two world wars than the native populations.
Portugal did not fight in the two world wars jet it still lost its colonial empires. Also the Europeans of South Africa and Rhodesia were not really effected by it either.
Southern: The horse and gunpowder were examples of things adopted by native americans to illistrate the point that other groups adapted much more quickly than Africa. Nothing more (maybe they were weak examples).
The horse and gunpowder were examples of things adopted by native americans to illistrate the point that other groups adapted much more quickly than Africa. Nothing more (maybe they were weak examples).
Yes and do they really illustrate this. How quick really were the Indians to adopt gunpowder?
Southern: This was true of most of North America up untill the late 1700 to 1800s. The point remains Africa was much slower to adapt than the rest of the world (Politically, Economicly, Socially, ect.) Its hard to argue otherwise. Africa has been left behind.
Politically, economically, socially does not really tell me anything. I don't understand. What do you mean, precisely? What should they have adopted?
Marko:You can't argue with success.
In that case every group except the aborigines of australia and native americans of North America were successfull in resisting colonialism? I think the late cololinization of Africa does not speak to the successful resistance to European expansion. More to the lack of interest in colonizing Africa with much easier and lucrative alternatives. Europeans did not turn their attention to Africa until it was the only corner of the globe left to claim.
Marko:Portugal did not fight in the two world wars jet it still lost its colonial empires. Also the Europeans of South Africa and Rhodesia were not really effected by it either.
Never the less the two world wars dramaticly shift the economic and political structure of the world. Free trade became the norm and the need for nations to secure resources through colonization was rendered pointless. In other words it was the end of mercantilism, which was the economic system which drove colonization. Its affect would also reach those who did not fight.
Marko:Yes and do they really illustrate this. How quick really were the Indians to adopt gunpowder?
Late 1700's or Early 1800's? We have to remember early firearms were very limited. I would imagine adoption of the gun by native populations would be limited untill guns were refined to a point where they were superior to bows in every way.
Marko:Politically, economically, socially does not really tell me anything. I don't understand. What do you mean, precisely? What should they have adopted?
I wish i could say what they should have done. All I can say is what they have done has been insufficient to keep up with the rest of the world.
Southern: In that case every group except the aborigines of australia and native americans of North America were successfull in resisting colonialism?
In that case every group except the aborigines of australia and native americans of North America were successfull in resisting colonialism?
Obviously not. They remain subjugated to this day.
One thing that is interesting about Africa is that while it is labelled "a continent of wars" since decolonialisation there have only ever been three conventional wars in sub-saharan Africa that I can think of. The Ogaden War (1977-78)
South African Border War (1987-89 for the conventional phase)
Eritrean–Ethiopian War (1998-2000)
The South African Border War involved apartheid South Africa which was a colonialist state so we can not even talk fully about a war in decolonialised Africa plus the Angolans could only fight it because they were beefed up by Cuba and the Soviet Union. The other two on the other hand took place on the horn of Africa which is not characteristic of Africa at large since it is home to Ethiopia, a country traditionally possessing a strong native central government. Something of an African version of Prussia.So only three conventional wars on a continent with countless antagonism between governments. But instead of duking it out using their armies these governments almost always fight their wars by proxy instead. Eg, Sudan funds the rebels in Chad and Chad funds the rebels in Sudan. Why is this? I would speculate this has a lot to do with governments being rather powerless due to Africans chronically lacking reverence for the government and the state. Probably because their first loyalty is instead to their extended family, their tribe or their ethnic group.Of course lack of such reverence would also have other consequences. It would mean the position of the government is much less secure and therefore their outlook much more short term. It would mean the people entering politics are even less likely to do so out of selfless, patriotic reasons and it would mean the populace is much less likely to expect them be patriots. All of this lends itself great to a corruptocracy. A relatively benign form of government in terms of GULAGs and the number of people murdered by the secret police for political reasons, but one very efficient at impoverishing the populace. Anecdotally this is exactly the type of government typical of Africa, tribes playing a game of musical chairs, overthrowing one another from the government to take turns at looting all the other tribes using for this the instrument of the state.
Marko: Southern: every group except Obviously not. They remain subjugated to this day.
Southern: every group except
every group except
we are in agreement
Southern: Marko: Southern: every group except Obviously not. They remain subjugated to this day. we are in agreement
No sorry I read too fast. I thought you said something else.
Marko:I would speculate this has a lot to do with governments being rather powerless due to Africans chronically lacking reverence for the government and the state.
Or during the cold war the soviet union and united states used thier influence to maintain a balance of power. Making it very dangerous for the states of Africa to wage blatant war against one another. To blatantly attack neighboring nations risked loosing support from the two superpowers or even worse becoming a "problem" for them. Only speculation on my part.
Marko:Probably because their first loyalty is instead to their extended family, their tribe or their ethnic group.
I would bet that this is true. But I believe it true of all people.
Southern: Or during the cold war the soviet union and united states used thier influence to maintain a balance of power. Making it very dangerous for the states of Africa to wage blatant war against one another. To blatantly attack neighboring nations risked loosing support from the two superpowers or even worse becoming a "problem" for them. Only speculation on my part.
It didn't stop conventional wars on other continents.
Southern: Marko:Probably because their first loyalty is instead to their extended family, their tribe or their ethnic group. I would bet that this is true. But I believe it true of all people.
No, not to the same extent. The social norm in Africa is that if you get a mid level position in the government that you take care of your extended family by getting all of your relatives decent government jobs. If you do not do this then the family considers you a bad and ungrateful person. Try herding that sort of people to die on the Somme by their thousands.There isn't any of the pledge of allegiance, saluting the flag type nationalism.
Southern: Marko:I would speculate this has a lot to do with governments being rather powerless due to Africans chronically lacking reverence for the government and the state. Or during the cold war the soviet union and united states used thier influence to maintain a balance of power. Making it very dangerous for the states of Africa to wage blatant war against one another. To blatantly attack neighboring nations risked loosing support from the two superpowers or even worse becoming a "problem" for them. Only speculation on my part.
I guess it is somewhere past the 1,000 people/day that were dying in Angola's proxy war to be called "blatant war" huh?
Anyhow, there seems to be a correlation in standard of living between the areas that had white settlers from the 1800's, like S. Africa, Nigeria, Kenya. Where there was not such development targeted at citizens, infrastructure that was built consisted more of things like rails to get ore out, versus roads for villages to get clean water.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.