Question for the historian buffs: Was Africa better off before or after colonialism?

We have a continent with the world's highest birth rate, and yet is actually shrinking population wise in a few countries. Obviously this was only a recent trend. What accounts for this? Is mainly because of AID's?

serious, non-racist question :o

AIDS, Malaria, impacts of colonialism on cultural and economic development... and another real "killer" is the way in which Africa was divided up into countries based on what the Europeans felt best... Because of this Africa has been plagued with so many wars between tribes that never used to share the same territory or country... The use of war children affects the young populations psychologically, AIDS destroys the most productive members of the work force and politically active... Factor in poor water conditions, lack of infrastructrue as well as a pitiful health system, the impacts of globalization and the fact the bloody conflict for control over natural resources (oil, diamonds, etc) and you've got one hell hole...

Because a lot of countries have a disproportiate amount of male deaths countries like Rwanda have encouraged women to become more politically active... Rwanda's parliament is 45% female as a result.. higher than the Scandinavian countries who for the longest time had the highest number of females in parliament.. That i'm afraid is the only positive...

The saddest case is Botswana... often hailed as one of the most democratic and well off African countries their life expectancy has plummeted to a dysmal 32 years old for male and females... it's rare to see life expectancies that are higher than 55 mostly cause of high infant mortality rates, women dying during childbirth and the abundance of disease... :(

Too many wild animals. Too few roads, tall buildings, and books.

It's that simple.

It's not a bad question-in a lot of ways it was definitely better before colonialism because of the problems associated with poor urban planning and the population growth but now they have access to some things they didnt before-still a net loss but there's a potential for gain if they can get some serious help.
Islam is a problem in Africa.Much as we couldnt do much for the nations in the Eastern Bloc-I believe Islam keeps us from mixing it up much in Africa...

Too many wild animals. Too few roads, tall buildings, and books.

It's that simple.I guess lions are still King of the jungle :p

I would say its the legacy of colonialism, both European and Arabic. Many pan-africanists insist that Islamic exploitation was not as bad as that of the Europeans but I disagree. Both muslams and christian europeans engaged in the slave trade and both played nation against nation and tribe against tribe.

The exploitation of Africa continues and will continue until Africa overcomes its expanding population, its poverty, its hunger and disease and a new democratic africa emerges.

I've heard that in some parts of Africa it's considered good luck to eat a Pygmy penis everyday. I've seen a picture of a guy with a necklace made of Pygmy penises and everyday he takes one off and eats it.

It's also believed that to cure AIDS, you have to have sex with a virgin.

Could things like this have anything to do with it?

I would say its the legacy of colonialism, both European and Arabic. Many pan-africanists insist that Islamic exploitation was not as bad as that of the Europeans but I disagree. Both muslams and christian europeans engaged in the slave trade and both played nation against nation and tribe against tribe.The "let's blame our history" one trick pony is getting old. Not saying that colonization is good, but look at how places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Malaysia have emerged from their former colony status into robust countries. As well, I don't think the africans need much encouragement to destroy eachother. Just look at how the congoid races have almost been murdered to the point of extinction, long before any Arab or European ever set foot on the continent, where pygmies are hunted for sport.

I also doubt that Islam and Christianity can be blamed for the lucrative human genital trade or 'muti'.

Ignorance In Africa (http://www.americandaily.com/article/3927)

The reports this week of 3-year-old Thabang Malakoane in Eatonside, South Africa, are sickening. Thabang disappeared while his mother was napping and was later found with his left hand, genitals, brain, heart, and other vital organs gone. The small boy fell victim to a lucrative black market that has been built around the sale of human - especially children - body parts and organs.

The black market is grounded in muti medicine, the traditional African system of holistic healthcare. One of the beliefs of muti is that certain body parts can enhance your luck or health. Children are especially targeted because they are young - therefore, in the beliefs of muti, they have used up very little of their good luck.

[...]

South Africa, which is said to be one of the most developed societies in Africa, has a frighteningly high rate of muti slayings. Gerard Labuschagne, of the South African Police Service, estimates the average to be anywhere from one a month to 300 a year. The killings aren’t impulsive in nature - rather, they are commissioned specifically for a customer and carried out by witch doctors, called sangomas. Human skulls are used to bring good luck to businesses, hands are buried under entrances to stores to bring customers, genitals and placentas are used to cure infertility. Body parts - including internal organs - are often taken while the victims are alive so that the screams will make the parts more potent.

[...]

Muti has been a prominent factor in the spread of HIV throughout Africa. One of its teachings says that if an HIV positive man has sex with a virgin - the younger the better - he will be cured, and the following of that precept has led to thousands of babies born with the disease. This specific practice isn’t only followed in South Africa - where muti is most common - but throughout the entire continent of Africa.


The exploitation of Africa continues and will continue until Africa overcomes its expanding population, its poverty, its hunger and disease and a new democratic africa emerges.

It's being exploited alright

£220bn stolen by Nigeria's corrupt rulers (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/25/wnig25.xml)

The scale of the task facing Tony Blair in his drive to help Africa was laid bare yesterday when it emerged that Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused £220 billion.

That is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the continent.

[...]

The stolen fortune tallies almost exactly with the £220 billion of western aid given to Africa between 1960 and 1997. That amounted to six times the American help given to post-war Europe under the Marshall Plan.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/raichu4u/wnig25a.jpg

They seem screwed either way. Not able to feed/clothe themselves, they ask for money. With money, the brutal dictators buy chateaus in Switzerland or England, and use it to genocide a group they don't like and their people still starve to death.

The "let's blame our history" one trick pony is getting old. Not saying that colonization is good, but look at how places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Malaysia have emerged from their former colony status into robust countries. As well, I don't think the africans need much encouragement to destroy eachother. Just look at how the congoid races have almost been murdered to the point of extinction, long before any Arab or European ever set foot on the continent, where pygmies are hunted for sport.
Taiwan and Hong Kong have one thing that african nations lack which is a homogenous population. Malaysia does have a large and disenfranchised Chinese minority but it did, through economic policies create a strong economy. Malaysia does, by the way, have a dismal human rights record.

Taiwan and Hong Kong have one thing that african nations lack which is a homogenous population. Malaysia does have a large and disenfranchised Chinese minority but it did, through economic policies create a strong economy. Malaysia does, by the way, have a dismal human rights record.diversity = strength, no? :confused:

diversity = strength, no? :confused:

I dont like to admit it but that's a fair objection...there is a strength that comes from having a homgenous population-but where you want to protect the governing values you dont really want to exclude people.
But certainly a telling argument could be made that we're not doing an adequate job protecting our values...

I guess lions are still King of the jungle :p
Lions don't live in the jungle...they like open areas like grasslands...

AIDS, Malaria, impacts of colonialism on cultural and economic development... and another real "killer" is the way in which Africa was divided up into countries based on what the Europeans felt best... Because of this Africa has been plagued with so many wars between tribes that never used to share the same territory or country... The use of war children affects the young populations psychologically, AIDS destroys the most productive members of the work force and politically active... Factor in poor water conditions, lack of infrastructrue as well as a pitiful health system, the impacts of globalization and the fact the bloody conflict for control over natural resources (oil, diamonds, etc) and you've got one hell hole...

Because a lot of countries have a disproportiate amount of male deaths countries like Rwanda have encouraged women to become more politically active... Rwanda's parliament is 45% female as a result.. higher than the Scandinavian countries who for the longest time had the highest number of females in parliament.. That i'm afraid is the only positive...

The saddest case is Botswana... often hailed as one of the most democratic and well off African countries their life expectancy has plummeted to a dysmal 32 years old for male and females... it's rare to see life expectancies that are higher than 55 mostly cause of high infant mortality rates, women dying during childbirth and the abundance of disease... :(


i agree with everything you said...........

If people paid attention to Africa it would get better over there...

Too many wild animals. Too few roads, tall buildings, and books.

It's that simple.Wild animals are inculpable! Too many killing to the wild animals and too many roads and ignorance and irresponsable people are making human beings get into the besieging of the viruses.

diversity = strength, no? :confused:

The fools always contradict themselves. Diversity in brown nations = bad, causes conflict. Diverstiy in white nations = good, culturally enriching. Though in their hearts they know that diversity in this sense could never be a "strength". Not for Africans. Not for any nation.

One standard for whitey, another for the rest.

If people paid attention to Africa it would get better over there...

Yes. All their problems would magically disappear.

Not at all,but it would attract investors and people would go over there and clean it up...

Not at all,but it would attract investors and people would go over there and clean it up...

People like you are always blaming colonialism for Africa's problems, and now you say the new version is the solution? Funny.

People like you are always blaming colonialism for Africa's problems, and now you say the new version is the solution? Funny.

People like YOU are always flying to conclusions-colonialism was only bad because it didnt take into account the needs of the people.

People like YOU are always flying to conclusions-colonialism was only bad because it didnt take into account the needs of the people.

That is the nature of colonialism. No amount of idealism will ever change that.

Nonsense-there have responsible and irresponsible invaders amd imperialists-it goes to the integrity of the civilization. The WASP civilization is a creature of little integrity-if you want to rule a people you need to be responsible-that's a major reason why Nazi Germany couldnt secure its conquests in eastern Europe..

Nonsense-there have responsible and irresponsible invaders amd imperialists-it goes to the integrity of the civilization. The WASP civilization is a creature of little integrity-if you want to rule a people you need to be responsible-that's a major reason why Nazi Germany couldnt secure its conquests in eastern Europe..

Integrity............. why the Roman Empire could secure its conquests???:rolleyes:

Question for the historian buffs: Was Africa better off before or after colonialism?

I think it depends upon which nations you're discussing. I don't see how you can make a case that Belgian Congo (current day Zaire) was better after colonization than before. The people were horribly exploited, the entire population practically reduced to a state of slavery. I'm under the impression that the Portguese were pretty ruthless in Mozambique as well, but since it was also the last sub-Saharan colony the Europeans gave up, that may be some revisionism.

As to the French and British colonies, its likely a toss-up. I'm not sure, but I'd be curious to hear arguments either way.

We have a continent with the world's highest birth rate, and yet is actually shrinking population wise in a few countries.

You should be careful with this. The countries that abut the Mediterranean (as well as at least part of Sudan) do not consider themselves African, but Arab. Did wherever you got this figure do and Arab-Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa comparison? Beyond that, I don't know. :(

Integrity............. why the Roman Empire could secure its conquests???:rolleyes:

I would say the Roman Empire had more integrity than the British-maybe I'm wrong-certainly they were as scathingly alienating as the Nazis.
You'll have to develop your point...

I would say the Roman Empire had more integrity than the British-maybe I'm wrong-certainly they were as scathingly alienating as the Nazis.
You'll have to develop your point...

I suppose you need to define "integrity." Enslaving everyone you conquer is not part of my definition.

I suppose you need to define "integrity." Enslaving everyone you conquer is not part of my definition.

Why do you expect from my perspective I'd want to defend the Roman Empire?
This argument started because I made the statement that colonialism in and of itself wasnt essentially bad but that the Brits were irresponsible-in no way does that essentially imply that I feel the Romans were more responsible.
I dont know whether they were or not-tell me what it is you object to in all of this.You certainly cant be agreeing with Stigger...

"Divide and Conquer" is one of the big reason why Rome became a major empire. Integrity really didn't come into it much.

The point I was making that the Nazis were dealing with people who were glad to see them,they were sick of communism-they hurt themselves by embarking on a policy of terror and assassination...

Nonsense-there have responsible and irresponsible invaders amd imperialists-it goes to the integrity of the civilization. The WASP civilization is a creature of little integrity-if you want to rule a people you need to be responsible-that's a major reason why Nazi Germany couldnt secure its conquests in eastern Europe..

You are letting your bias and personal hatred for this "WASP civilization" cloud your thinking. Try being objective.

The fools always contradict themselves. Diversity in brown nations = bad, causes conflict. Diverstiy in white nations = good, culturally enriching. Though in their hearts they know that diversity in this sense could never be a "strength". Not for Africans. Not for any nation.

One standard for whitey, another for the rest.- Diversity is only as bad as it's made to be by those who're living it. There are loads of examples of areas with people who have different ethnicities, yet get along fine.

Sadly, there are also areas where people of different ethnicities used to get along okay - but suddenly started killing each other after the introduction of racism. Like the Hutus and Tutsies or the conflict in former Jugoslavia.

Diversity is a strength, unless people start ranking their ethnicities in a hirearchy of value.

Because it is not using birth control.

Why do you expect from my perspective I'd want to defend the Roman Empire?
This argument started because I made the statement that colonialism in and of itself wasnt essentially bad [QUOTE]

No, my issue is with this statement:

[QUOTE]Nonsense-there have responsible and irresponsible invaders amd imperialists-it goes to the integrity of the civilization.

I just used Rome as perhaps the more successful model of Imperialism, lasting (arguably) about 500 years (31 BC to 467 AD) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) compared to the British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) which (again, arguably) lasted about 500 years (1497 - 1960). The size of the Roman Empire was of course smaller since human populations were less, and the Romans did not have the maritime technology to expand geographically like the Brits. I don't think that Nazi Imperializm can come close to being compared with either of these examples.......and

Niether can the 200+ years of United States Imperialism which, like British Imperialism seems to be evolving through a predictably similar pattern of initial military conquest, followed by colonial loss, followed by economic conquest, and finally loss of leadership status.

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with integrity.

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with integrity.

We're talking about the state of affairs among the subjects after the conquerer leaves-America is a good example,actually,they left Germany and Japan better off than when the war started.
America showed integrity in assessing the needs of their subjects...

We're talking about the state of affairs among the subjects after the conquerer leaves-America is a good example,actually,they left Germany and Japan better off than when the war started.
America showed integrity in assessing the needs of their subjects...

OK, so by "imperial integrity" you mean how the the state of the empire after no empire exists..................:hmm: I smell an oxymoron......sniff....yes, the scent is heavey;

As long as the emipre exists integrity is absent, but when the imperialists leave, then they do so with integrity................:confused:

If the Africans didn't like where the Eurpoeans drew the national borders, they could have redrawn them. It would have been a lot easier than going to war with each other. But the simple fact is that the Africans like to go to war with each other. You can't blame Eurpoean colonialists for that, especially considering that the colonialists all left decades ago.

You have it backwards; war is actually the far easier option, it is diplomacy that is hard. If war costs somebody else's life then the cost is trivial for many leaders, while loss of territory or of valuable natural resources is something they are not prepared to stomach.

Question for the historian buffs: Was Africa better off before or after colonialism?

We have a continent with the world's highest birth rate, and yet is actually shrinking population wise in a few countries. Obviously this was only a recent trend. What accounts for this? Is mainly because of AID's?

serious, non-racist question :o

Africa 'better in colonial times'

The average African is worse off now than during the colonial era, the brother of South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki has said.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3679706.stm

Africa 'better in colonial times'

The average African is worse off now than during the colonial era, the brother of South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki has said.

The article also notes that he said that

while China had lifted some 400,000 people out of poverty in the past 20 years, Nigeria had pushed 71 million people below the poverty line.

So when the hell are the Chinese gonna start helpin' the Nigerians???

But the simple fact is that the Africans like to go to war with each other.

What trail of logic has brought you to this conclusion Feenix?

What trail of logic has brought you to this conclusion Feenix?all the wars?

OK, so by "imperial integrity" you mean how the the state of the empire after no empire exists..................:hmm: I smell an oxymoron......sniff....yes, the scent is heavey;

As long as the emipre exists integrity is absent, but when the imperialists leave, then they do so with integrity................:confused:

Why do you resist me,my friend? Certainly this country is still alive-and there are places where the Empire stinks of the old Babylonian excesses but the most part America is a real champion for human rights.
If a place is governed with integrity the strength remains even when the invader has departed...

- Diversity is only as bad as it's made to be by those who're living it. There are loads of examples of areas with people who have different ethnicities, yet get along fine.

Sadly, there are also areas where people of different ethnicities used to get along okay - but suddenly started killing each other after the introduction of racism. Like the Hutus and Tutsies or the conflict in former Jugoslavia.

"Introduction of racism"? wtf?! "Racism" has existed since the dawn of humanity and before. Let me guess, you believe in-groups, tribalism, and biological competition among groups did not exist before whitey came along and ruined everything.

Diversity is a strength, unless people start ranking their ethnicities in a hirearchy of value.

Yes but people, unless severely brainwashed (like yourself) will always arrange their world in such a way. It is natural and has served to create a competitive biological advantage to those who do it (until recently, everyone). Natural selection is why such thinking is prevalent. Those who do not think in such a way will eventually be outcompeted by those who do.

"Introduction of racism"? wtf?! "Racism" has existed since the dawn of humanity and before. Let me guess, you believe in-groups, tribalism, and biological competition among groups did not exist before whitey came along and ruined everything. - Dividing humanity in to "races" and ranking these in a system of value was not something that happened before the nineteenth century - and yes, as it happens, the people who did it had pinkish skin - don't see how that matters though.

Yes but people, unless severely brainwashed (like yourself) will always arrange their world in such a way. It is natural and has served to create a competitive biological advantage to those who do it (until recently, everyone). Natural selection is why such thinking is prevalent. Those who do not think in such a way will eventually be outcompeted by those who do.- The human species has specialized in co-operation. That's what's put us on top of the food chain, not the fact that we keep killing eachother.

- Dividing humanity in to "races" and ranking these in a system of value was not something that happened before the nineteenth century - and yes, as it happens, the people who did it had pinkish skin - don't see how that matters though.

Racism is an extension of tribalism. It has always existed in humans. It is not about skin colour. You have brown asians who are racist against brown africans, dispite being the same colour. Any "system of value" which exists now and did not exist before is merely due to the circumstances of this time, and if the circumstances change the values would change, and will change.

- The human species has specialized in co-operation. That's what's put us on top of the food chain, not the fact that we keep killing eachother.

Idealogical BS. The human species, like all species are biological competitors both within the species, and without. Yes we have specialized in co-operation, but this co-operation has been necessary to outcompete different groups within our own species as much as it has been necessary to overcome other challenges.

Racism is an extension of tribalism.- It's similar to it, sure.

It has always existed in humans.- Tribalism, maybe, racism, no.

It is not about skin colour.- It's mostly about skin colour.

You have brown asians who are racist against brown africans, dispite being the same colour. - Sure, but 1: since when? and 2: it's hardly very common.

Any "system of value" which exists now and did not exist before is merely due to the circumstances of this time, and if the circumstances change the values would change, and will change.- Things change, people's feelings for each others change, sure. What people chose as diacritica to define themselves as "not-others" changes as well.

Idealogical BS.- Ideological? It makes no difference at all for my ideology what the human species has been doing in the past or how we're on the top of the food chain.

The human species, like all species are biological competitors both within the species, and without. Yes we have specialized in co-operation, but this co-operation has been necessary to outcompete different groups within our own species as much as it has been necessary to overcome other challenges.- There really is no reason for us to try and out-compete each other. The fact that groups of people have had violent conflicts in the past hardly means that those were necessary...

Racism-word(the meaning of that word) is an invention made human !

People have allways thought their own first, that ain´t bad it´s natural. (And yes, people have different thought about that, who they consider as own)

It isn´t evil.

Racism-word(the meaning of that word) is an invention made human !- What. :eek7:

People have allways thought their own first,- Sure, but that isn't necessarily racism, I mean, obviously I won't tell you that a mother who cares more for her own children than for others is doing something horribly wrong :P The matter is rather who people consider "their own", or more importantly; who they consider alien, how they consider aliens, scale and probably a lot of other things that makes racism so harmful.

that ain´t bad it´s natural- There are a lot of things that are bad, even though they are natural. Tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes, for instance, can all be very bad.

You might want to know that you might as well leave your standard arguments at the door, all of us here have had plenty of exposure to stormfrontians before :) There are several of them still here, even, like Thumper, Stigger and Jack_boot.