The root cause of Africa's problems?

[McHrozni]

Had they allowed the locals to keep their grazing lands and small farms and not taken the best for the foreign planters, and had not insisted on strict segregation of blacks and whites, had the same educational opportunities been available to all, the native population would have been more prosperous and would have been in the position to administer thier own governmental affairs from day one of independance.

In other words, had they destroyed the indigenous culture more thoroughly. Thanks.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

So the indescriminate and massive enslavement of the West African populace didn't destabilize the kingdoms that depended of the West Africans' being in West Africa?

And the ensuing political turmoil didn't allow the European to wrest power from the indigenous populations?

Given that most of European conquests of Africa came decades after slavery was abolished, and most of it after the end of the Atlantic slave trade, I suspect Virus is right in that the situation was way more complex.

McHrozni

 

[mijopaalmc]

Switzerland is a patchwork nation-state cobbled together from the the Holy Roman Empire. The constituent ethnicities have a long-standing religio-political feuds stretching far back into the Antiquity, not just the Middle Ages. Yet, the situation in Switzerland couldn't be more different. Why?

For someone who knows enough about Swiss history to claim a valid analogy to Balkan history, you should be able to answer that yourself.

As a side note, Soviet influence in Yugoslavia pretty much ended in 1949.

Evidence?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Given that most of European conquests of Africa came decades after slavery was abolished, and most of it after the end of the Atlantic slave trade, I suspect Virus is right in that the situation was way more complex.

So depleting the populace of West Africa and creating a power vacuum in the process had nothing to do with the success of the European conquests?

 

[McHrozni]

For someone who knows enough about Swiss history to claim a valid analogy to Balkan history, you should be able to answer that yourself.

Oh I'm not claiming Switzerland is comparable to Balkans at all, it's a significantly different state ... but the difference is cultural, the same historic issues that apply to Yugoslavia can apply to Switzerland as well.

Evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informburo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito-Stalin_split

McHrozni

 

[leftysergeant]

In other words, had they destroyed the indigenous culture more thoroughly. Thanks.

Yeah, right. Just like they did in China.

 

[McHrozni]

So depleting the populace of West Africa and creating a power vacuum in the process had nothing to do with the success of the European conquests?

Not that it had nothing to do, but it wasn't crucial. It made the conquests easier and quicker, probably less bloody as well, but the difference in technological and military capabilities was so vast there can be no doubt the conquests would happen anyway. Larger, better organized and more distant states fell to Europeans before Africa did.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Yeah, right. Just like they did in China.

China accepted many important aspects of Western culture and organization by themselves. It did wonders for them.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

So the indescriminate and massive enslavement of the West African populace didn't destabilize the kingdoms that depended of the West Africans' being in West Africa?

And the ensuing political turmoil didn't allow the European to wrest power from the indigenous populations?

Colonialism didn't enslave anyone in Africa. The Europeans bought people who were enslaved by their own African rulers. They didn't "charge in" either because there were diseases there. They did the trading at the ports where African rulers sold their slaves to the Europeans.

They didn't enter beyond the coast until much later, after they had invented vaccines and modern medicine that allowed them to. This was not to enslave people but to end slavery. The British Empire abolished slavery, against the wishes of the African rulers.

If you don't know that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Virus]

delete

 

[Humes fork]

If you’re talking culture, you’re talking race.

Are North Koreans and South Koreans different races?

 

[Humes fork]

None of which are unique to Africa. Europe, however, never became a satellite colony of more powerful monarchy that destroyed the indigenous cultures and bled the land of it resources.

The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have also been satellite colonies, with vastly different outcomes than Africa.

 

[McHrozni]

The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have also been satellite colonies, with vastly different outcomes than Africa.

Precisely. In addition Ethiopia wasn't a colony for a significant period of time, and fared comparably poorly as it's colonized neighbors. If colonial bleeding of the land was the culprit in damaging the state, then the poorest performers would be the countries that suffered under colonialism the longest. That means South Africa would be among the worst and Ethiopia among the best African states. Reality is obviously very different.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

There was actually a study that looked at the length of time various islands were colonized and found that:

The number of years spent as a European colony
is strongly positively related to the island’s GDP per capita and negatively related to infant mortality.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12546.pdf

Dinesh D'Souza wrote a pretty good article explaining why colonialism wasn't as horrible as it's cracked up to be.

 

[DC]

i think Switzerland should take Australia as a colony, so they can get real Democracy and an improvement in culture.

 

[Virus]

i think Switzerland should take Australia as a colony, so they can get real Democracy and an improvement in culture.

I guess you would have to resort to posts like that after getting your ass kicked so hard.

 

[Mark6]

Virus and MagZ: you ignore this at your (argumentative) peril:
At the risk of repeating myself (from other threads), I really strongly suggest reading Guns, Germs and Steel and God and Gold The two combined are quite explanatory of the situation being discussed (there are others, but those two will hit it in pretty much all important ways).

I read it. I found it less than convincing. Jared Diamond simply ignores people who do not seem to fit in his "geography is destiny" thesis. Like Mongols creating a huge empire despite coming from Central Asia -- no fractured geography there. (Literally ignored -- the entire book has exactly one sentence mentioning Mongol Empire.) Or the fact that India got conquered by the British despite having all the same advantages as Europe -- melting pot of domestic animals and plants (actually, more of both than Europe) and fractured geography which contributed to multiple competing states. By Jared's thesis, Indian subcontinent should have been technologically at least equal to Europe.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have also been satellite colonies, with vastly different outcomes than Africa.

That first bunch involved Europeans near completely removing the natives, so it isn't particularly relevant.

 

[Virus]

That first bunch involved Europeans near completely removing the natives, so it isn't particularly relevant.

Singapore. Hong Kong.

 

[Humes fork]

That first bunch involved Europeans near completely removing the natives, so it isn't particularly relevant.

Are you suggesting only ethnic Europeans can build prosperous societies?