The root cause of Africa's problems?

[portlandatheist]

This seems to be the specter of Guns, Germs, and Steel, a book that tries to explain the success of Eurasian empires by disease and domesticable animals.

Of course, the book is badly titled, as it has almost nothing about guns or steel. It should have been called "Germs, Germs, Germs, Some Animals with Germs, Some More Germs, About 40 More Unnecessary Pages About Germs." Still, given that it's oversimplified, popular, vapid, speculative, grandiose, self-congratulatory pablum, it's not bad as such. That is, it's an idea to think about, amongst other ideas, and a pretty good one.

However, it really don't deserve the let-all-superglue-out-tongues to Jared Diamond's puckered sphincter, a process normally reserved for the likes of Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh. It happened to hit a sweet spot, giving very white people a way to think (or pretend to think) about Africa with thinking of themselves as racists. It was welcome because the old "damn white colonialists" idea was wearing thing, especially after all that fun Robert Mugabe had.

I mentioned Guns, Germs, and Steel in my first post in this thread, not a perfect book as you allude to but a good read nonetheless. History is a combination of well or poorly thought out plans and pure accidents/dumb luck. Africa happens to have a double whammy of both the accident/happenstance of their geography and resources and poorly thought out politics and culture and obviously, there's great diversity in Africa so the problems in some places don't translate to the problems that other countries are having. I want to see more aid given to Africa but the right kind of aid: not food aid but farming equipment, clean water, etc.
I'm also of the belief that economics is not zero sum and the more prosperous and happy the African's are, the more the west will be prosperous and happy as well. If we make the right investments, it will help us both.

 

[Virus]

It's politically correct to say it's all comes down to blind chance.

It does relegate people to the status of passive objects though. But that's acceptable whereas saying some cultures are better than others is not.

 

[McHrozni]

This seems to be the specter of Guns, Germs, and Steel, a book that tries to explain the success of Eurasian empires by disease and domesticable animals.

Of course, the book is badly titled, as it has almost nothing about guns or steel. It should have been called "Germs, Germs, Germs, Some Animals with Germs, Some More Germs, About 40 More Unnecessary Pages About Germs." Still, given that it's oversimplified, popular, vapid, speculative, grandiose, self-congratulatory pablum, it's not bad as such. That is, it's an idea to think about, amongst other ideas, and a pretty good one.

There is little doubt that germs helped, especially (or just about exclusively) in the New World. But the real culprit is, imho, the Renaissance, which really did change the European thinking. With anywhere between 3 and 8 major states constantly competing and battling for supremacy, once the ball of advancement started rolling there was no stopping it. The empires that fell behind lost their status. Spain is a prime example.
The importance of colonialism is often overstated, France and England were both major powers before they had significant empires, Austria didn't have an overseas empire at all and, Sweden only had minor holdings.

McHrozni

 

[bigjelmapro]

I've no real interest in becoming mired in an "Israel Good v Israel Bad" thread, though but it appears we are at least in partial agreement about the "scale" aspect of the disparity in aid between a continent and a single country.

Egypt cops a lot of cash as well!

And neither do I have any interest in giving you the option to exit stage left by pegging this as an "Israel Good v Israel Bad" skit. It isn't and never was. Its simply an easy subject, at face value, to take a few stabs at pretending as if someone's informed about the subject matter, when the opposite is true.

The private military industry in various countries (and how they work with eachother) functions completely different than economic aid and development does.

There's no disparity in economic aid to Israel versus Africa and thus we are not in agreement at all. Learn to differentiate between the FMF and that of economic aid. Understand that Israel purchases over $30+ billion per year from the US's private military industries with nominal offsets, and it put this subject into more of a proper context.

Also, understand that the budgets of entire projects, ie Solar farm and irrigation projects in Kenya, greenhouse systems, Mashav (Center for International Cooperation), etc. are the equivalent of a few JDAMs and some JP8 fuel in terms of price.

One supports the development and sustainability of agriculture of entire towns and villages, the other pounds on some reinforced terrorist hiding spot. A disparity here is how many people each case affects and its duration.

There's one trade mission coming up next month:

9th Africa-Israel Agricultural Trade Mission

All in all, more of these programmes have to be developed and their budgets increased to have any positive effect on the African continent as a whole, country by country.

As for the OP, haven't we flogged this dead horse enough?

 

[theprestige]

Just lets hope they will not blame us when the consequences of our "superiority" hits them.

At the rate China's going, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves, when the consequences hit.

 

[DarthFishy]

Africa's problems are largely due to colonialism.

Arguing otherwise is arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

You cannot expect culture(s) to develop when they are subjugated, slaved out, forced off their land, killed, oppressed and excluded from any meaningful participation in government.

And the effects of these actions take longer than a generation or two to overcome.

Take South Africa for example, 18 years since our first democratic elections and the advances we have made are incredible. Even so, the systemic results of Apartheid are still very apparent and make it very difficult for the poor to make an improvement in their lives. It's happening, but in spite of, not due to, the influence of "Western Culture".

This of course leads to a new issue which is, what exactly is defined as "Western Culture". Is an African Politician driving the latest BMW, wearing an Armani suit and talking on his iPhone part of Western Culture or African Culture? Is a traditional healer that uses a Facebook page to reach customers part of African culture or Western culture? Is a white South African working for a black South African part of Western Culture or African Culture?

You can't claim one is superior to the other if you cannot differentiate between them.

And finally, to underscore the theme in this thread that Africa is an amazingly diverse place I will layout some of this African's current problems:

(1) Sitting at work not really wanting to see a Masters Student and discuss their research topic of Virtual Worlds and Team building. (Black African student btw).
(2) Wondering what to do with a colleague of his, hailing from Eritriea, who doesn't always do his work.
(3) Trying to figure out if he has time to play the Diablo III open beta this weekend.

I'm wondering if the "superior" Westen culture could help me with any of those?

 

[McHrozni]

Africa's problems are largely due to colonialism.

Arguing otherwise is arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

You cannot expect culture(s) to develop when they are subjugated, slaved out, forced off their land, killed, oppressed and excluded from any meaningful participation in government.

Oh please, the very same thing was true for Europe, China, Japan ... and it didn't have the same effects as it did in Africa. Furthermore, countries like Ethiopia, that have had almost no colonial history, are faring no better than the ones that have been colonized for an extensive period of time. Epic Fail, with a big F.

You can't claim one is superior to the other if you cannot differentiate between them.

Very few people, if any, are claiming any sort of overall superiority. All cultures have their own sets of problems and issues. That said, African culture is still a major cause of African problems - specifically, blaming colonialism for current events is a major source of problems in Africa.

McHrozni

 

[DarthFishy]

Oh please, the very same thing was true for Europe, China, Japan ... and it didn't have the same effects as it did in Africa. Furthermore, countries like Ethiopia, that have had almost no colonial history, are faring no better than the ones that have been colonized for an extensive period of time. Epic Fail, with a big F.
McHrozni

All those aspects I discussed regarding colonialism in Africa, did those happen in Europe as well? Did they happen as recently as 20 years ago? Did they even happen as recently as a 100 years ago?

If not then you cannot make that comparison.

That said, African culture is still a major cause of African problems - specifically, blaming colonialism for current events is a major source of problems in Africa.

How is pointing out that it is difficult for a majority of black South African's to get good jobs because they have not been able to move out of the Informal Settlements where the Apartheid Government forced them into, a cause of South African problems?

How is pointing out that only now is a new generation of black South African students making it to University that had the benefit of a proper education, a cause of South African problems?

I see this meme a lot, about indigenous people still blaming the "White Governments", for their problem, and how this is the actual problem. Well it still is a problem. The policies of the Apartheid government still has effects on South African culture today.

Thankfully once we white people stopped thinking we were better and decided to share the country, things have started getting a hell of a lot better.

Apartheid South Africa vs the New South Africa is a clear example of one culture being superior to another. Unfortunately for some of the posters in this thread the White Christian culture isn't the superior one.

 

[McHrozni]

All those aspects I discussed regarding colonialism in Africa, did those happen in Europe as well? Did they happen as recently as 20 years ago? Did they even happen as recently as a 100 years ago?

If not then you cannot make that comparison.

No, but we can make the comparison between Africa now and Europe in 1900. It's still no contest.

How is pointing out that it is difficult for a majority of black South African's to get good jobs because they have not been able to move out of the Informal Settlements where the Apartheid Government forced them into, a cause of South African problems?

South Africa has been free of Apartheid for almost 20 years now. Even though the situation in South Africa then could be blamed on Apartheid, the lack of progress can not.

I see this meme a lot, about indigenous people still blaming the "White Governments", for their problem, and how this is the actual problem. Well it still is a problem. The policies of the Apartheid government still has effects on South African culture today.

No doubt it has, but South Africa is somewhat of a special case to begin with. The thread is not about South Africa, but about Africa. Most countries were 'free' (in name only, many are actually far more tyrannical) for over two decades before South African apartheid ended.

Didn't we have a discussion about South African democracy some time ago? Or maybe it was some other South African. Anyway, your government is up to some pretty fishy things that can't be blamed on Apartheid and could easily make South Africa just as bad if not worse than it was under Apartheid (it's not certain it will happen, but it looks quite likely). That can't be blamed on Apartheid. Nor can South African reluctance to deal with Robert Mugabe in the way he deserves (fire ants and honey). That's a problem of African culture: blame the white guy and punish him, consequences be damned. "Africa for Africans" is just as unacceptable as "Europe for Europeans".

McHrozni

 

[DarthFishy]

It's possible it's a topic I feel passionate about

I agree that not all of Africa's problems can be blamed on the Apartheid government.

And yes I agree South Africa is a special case, but it seems as if the problems that our government has created are normal modern government problems and don't seem typically "African".

Our latest debacle is about the installation of an e-tolling sytem on our main Highway against much of the will of the actual users of the road. This sounds to me like something that could very easily happen in Europe or the USA.

The situation with Robert Mugabe is interesting and I don't personally agree entirely with the way we've handled it. Even so I think the so-called "quiet diplomacy" approach has at least resulted in Morgan Tsvangirai (sp?) being given a position in government and being put in a position where a peaceful solution can hopefully be found. I'm not sure if Mugabe could have been treated in the same way Ghaddafi was treated, even though arguably he deserved a similar fate.

I'm once again using South Africa as an example but my experience has not been the "Africa for the Africans". I, as a white South African, feel completely at home here. I feel safe (I might be living in a security estate but most of the neighbours are black!), I feel welcome and I feel as if the Africans (and I deal with people from other African countries as well) appreciate me and what I have to offer.

I appreciate that this is not always true but that has been my experience.

 

[McHrozni]

It's possible it's a topic I feel passionate about

Understandable

I agree that not all of Africa's problems can be blamed on the Apartheid government.

And I agree that South Africa still suffers from aftereffects of Apartheid, but many are still overblown.

And yes I agree South Africa is a special case, but it seems as if the problems that our government has created are normal modern government problems and don't seem typically "African".

Mhm, it has, yes. You think this isn't because of Western influence?

Our latest debacle is about the installation of an e-tolling sytem on our main Highway against much of the will of the actual users of the road. This sounds to me like something that could very easily happen in Europe or the USA.

I was thinking about that media law, what's the status of that?

The situation with Robert Mugabe is interesting and I don't personally agree entirely with the way we've handled it. Even so I think the so-called "quiet diplomacy" approach has at least resulted in Morgan Tsvangirai (sp?) being given a position in government and being put in a position where a peaceful solution can hopefully be found.

We'll see, the prospects are quite bleak. The constitutional reform is way behind schedule and Mugabes' cronies are pushing for an early election, while he's still alive. Their voter roll is said to include more non-existant than real people though, so any prospect for a fair election is dead before the election even has a date.

I'm once again using South Africa as an example but my experience has not been the "Africa for the Africans". I, as a white South African, feel completely at home here. I feel safe (I might be living in a security estate but most of the neighbours are black!), I feel welcome and I feel as if the Africans (and I deal with people from other African countries as well) appreciate me and what I have to offer.

I wouldn't know from experience either, but refusing Western values because of colonial past does seem to be fairly common in Africa in general. You said something to that effect yourself.

McHrozni

 

[epepke]

There is little doubt that germs helped, especially (or just about exclusively) in the New World. But the real culprit is, imho, the Renaissance, which really did change the European thinking. With anywhere between 3 and 8 major states constantly competing and battling for supremacy, once the ball of advancement started rolling there was no stopping it. The empires that fell behind lost their status. Spain is a prime example.
The importance of colonialism is often overstated, France and England were both major powers before they had significant empires, Austria didn't have an overseas empire at all and, Sweden only had minor holdings.

McHrozni

Doubtless there have been and still are a bunch of problems.

My point is there are at least two considerations in any purported explanation of anything.

One is the possibility that an explanation can inform understanding, leading possibly to an idea about how to fix things. Depressingly (to me at least) few people are interested in that.

Another is how the explanation works in the social milieu of the explainer.

Take the "colonization" explanation. Of course, large parts of Africa were colonized by European powers who then pretty much just up and left. This has effects. One such effect was rather amusingly described by Douglas Adams in Last Chance to See. It leaves societies consisting of essentially middle managers, who make decisions in a middle manager kind of way, resulting, in Adams' description, in people who make life unpleasant for you until you pay them to stop. Considering this and how it may amplify the kind of distributed chiefdom thing that goes on many places in Africa, drawing parallels to Nietzsche's ressentiment, and even noticing similar behavior by Microsoft is the kind of thing I find interesting.

It also does something quite unrelated. It paints a dramatic little movie of evil Europeans with funny pith helmets and elaborate moustaches marching in and being all oppressive and ignorant. It resonates with Noble Savage myths amongst people who would never fess up to that term. It keeps Africans at arms length ostensibly with compassion and pseudo-respect rather than overt racism, and it doubtless makes the speaker feel better between sips of caramel machiato or bong hits or whatever privileged Western tipple the speaker might enjoy.

Interesting commentary about this from The Nº 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series about how well-meaning white people come and try to fix Africa, but the solutions don't work because they aren't African solutions. Hardly clean or objective commentary, though, because Alexander McCall Smith is much of a meta-type, too, as are we all.

 

[McHrozni]

Doubtless there have been and still are a bunch of problems.

My point is there are at least two considerations in any purported explanation of anything.

I agree, there are usually many different factors.

One is the possibility that an explanation can inform understanding, leading possibly to an idea about how to fix things. Depressingly (to me at least) few people are interested in that.

As far as I'm concerned this is the main reason. Many people just look at where to put blame and feel good because it's someone else did something wrong and not them or something. Irrespective where the original fault lies, the main solution or solutions will have to come from Africa. The fact they fared so poorly after the end of imperialism is in all likelihood in their culture.

Note one thing though - colonialism and imperialism differ. Colonialism (settling your own population abroad) is what happened in Americas, whereas Africa toiled under imperialism (rule from abroad with few settlers). South(-ern) Africa is an obvious exception.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

Africa's problems are largely due to colonialism.

Arguing otherwise is arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

Poisoning the well.

You cannot expect culture(s) to develop when they are subjugated, slaved out, forced off their land, killed, oppressed and excluded from any meaningful participation in government.

Africa practised slavery since before recorded history. African Empires killed and subjugated rivals and forced them off their land. Africans had been selling each other into slavery by the millions to the Arabs and Turks for centuries before a pith-helmeted European set foot there. Songhai was not democratically elected. The Sultan of Zanzibar was not democratically elected. No pre-colonial ruler of Africa was ever democratically elected. None of them offered their subjects meaningful participation in government.

It was the colonial powers that abolished slavery against the wishes of the local rulers who wanted to keep it going.

 

[DarthFishy]

Understandable

Sorry I meant to finish the sentence by saying that it is indeed quite likely we've had a similar conversation before on these boards

Mhm, it has, yes. You think this isn't because of Western influence?

This is kind of my point, that Western Culture is also causing problems in Africa.

I was thinking about that media law, what's the status of that?

I'm not certain to be honest. It's been a bit quite in the media concerning it (ominously in fact). Last I remember there were some people, mostly involved with the media, attempting to take the case to the consitutional court.

We'll see, the prospects are quite bleak. The constitutional reform is way behind schedule and Mugabes' cronies are pushing for an early election, while he's still alive. Their voter roll is said to include more non-existant than real people though, so any prospect for a fair election is dead before the election even has a date.

Unfortunately yes. I'll grant that in terms of Mugabe African culture creates a situation where our leaders are acting in a way that seems contrary to the way a European or American president would have acted. I'm not sure which approach would be best.

I wouldn't know from experience either, but refusing Western values because of colonial past does seem to be fairly common in Africa in general. You said something to that effect yourself.

I think that is a backlash based on the feeling that Western Values were forced unto Africans. My personal hope is for a best of both approach to become the norm.

 

[DarthFishy]

Note one thing though - colonialism and imperialism differ. Colonialism (settling your own population abroad) is what happened in Americas, whereas Africa toiled under imperialism (rule from abroad with few settlers). South(-ern) Africa is an obvious exception.

That is a good point.

 

[DarthFishy]

Poisoning the well.

Ok I'll concede that point.

I think I would argue that:

(1) Colonialism caused major problems in Africa (and elsewhere).
(2) It is not a trivial matter to escape from the effect of these problems.

And from that say:

(1) Yes colonialism is (partially at fault) for the problems in Africa (and elsewhere).
(2) It is the responsibility of Africans to solve their own problems.

No pre-colonial ruler of Africa was ever democratically elected. None of them offered their subjects meaningful participation in government.

No pre-colonial ruler of a Western nation was ever democratically elected. None of them offered their subjects meaningful participation in government.

 

[Virus]

Ok I'll concede that point.

I think I would argue that:

(1) Colonialism caused major problems in Africa (and elsewhere).
(2) It is not a trivial matter to escape from the effect of these problems.

And from that say:

(1) Yes colonialism is (partially at fault) for the problems in Africa (and elsewhere).
(2) It is the responsibility of Africans to solve their own problems.

No worse than the problems the Zanzibar Empire caused by killing and enslaving its rivals. Many countries in Africa are worse off than they were under Colonialism, when the streets were safe, public servants didn't take bribes and the trains ran on time.

No pre-colonial ruler of a Western nation was ever democratically elected. None of them offered their subjects meaningful participation in government.

Wrong. Ancient Greece. Roman Republic.

 

[Skepticemea]

No worse than the problems the Zanzibar Empire caused by killing and enslaving its rivals. Many countries in Africa are worse off than they were under Colonialism, when the streets were safe, public servants didn't take bribes and the trains ran on time.



Wrong. Ancient Greece. Roman Republic.

How'd that work out?

 

[McHrozni]

Sorry I meant to finish the sentence by saying that it is indeed quite likely we've had a similar conversation before on these boards

Ok
It's still understandable

This is kind of my point, that Western Culture is also causing problems in Africa.

Like all cultures it is both causing and solving problems. However most of current African woes are not due to being exposed to Western influences, but despite it. Note that I said most, not all.

I'm not certain to be honest. It's been a bit quite in the media concerning it (ominously in fact). Last I remember there were some people, mostly involved with the media, attempting to take the case to the consitutional court.

I see. I do wonder how it will play out.

Unfortunately yes. I'll grant that in terms of Mugabe African culture creates a situation where our leaders are acting in a way that seems contrary to the way a European or American president would have acted. I'm not sure which approach would be best.

I'm not certain either. Personally I'd consider recruiting a few thousand refugees, give them weapons and a two month training and send them back. Just the threat of doing so would probably make Mugabe and his chronies defacitate before undressing, indenpendant polls show they have 15% support in their "strongholds".

Pulling it off would probably be a mistake. Just starting with it however might produce good results.

I think that is a backlash based on the feeling that Western Values were forced unto Africans. My personal hope is for a best of both approach to become the norm.

Probably, yes. That doesn't invalidate the point that Africa is suffering because they refuse these norms, whatever the reason.

No pre-colonial ruler of a Western nation was ever democratically elected. None of them offered their subjects meaningful participation in government.

Not entirely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince's_Stone

The ritual took place on the Prince's Stone (Slovenian Knežji kamen, German Fürstenstein), an ancient Roman column capital near Krnski grad (now Karnburg) and was performed in the Slovene language by a free peasant who, selected by his peers, in the name of the people of the land questioned the new Prince about his integrity and reminded him of his duties. Later, when the Duchy of Carinthia had fallen to the Habsburgs, the idea that it was actually the people from whom the Duke of Carinthia received his legitimation was the basis of the Habsburgs' claim to the unique title of Archduke.

It's hardly a democratic election, but it shows that the idea of the ruler serving the people and having duties to them existed in Europe centuries before colonialism This is one of the most important aspects of democracy, it's as important as free and fair elections.

That said, what's your point exactly? The initial point was that African states never developed democracy by themselves, so colonialism and imperialism didn't destroy them. That Europeans didn't develop democracy before the late 18th century doesn't invalidate that.

McHrozni