Africa

DadaKopf

You mean began trading. Cultures should never do that, I suppose.

By incorporation, I mean use of means beyond simple trade relations - such as arming of Africans for the purposes of supplying them to slave drivers - i.e. through violence - to grease the wheels of the early market economy. I hope you're not implying the slave trade was OK because you think it somehow counts as legitimate trade.

It has to be said this process took time to have its effects. By around 1540, possibly 40,000 African slaves were sent to Spanish colonies; that number increased to 857,000 by 1650. By the mid-19th century, around 12 million African slaves landed in the Americas according to ship manifests. But it advanced rapidly in the 18th century, implying that the human export market had become more developed, and evidence shows slave traders using African agents to capture Africans.

Because violent tribalism and slavery did not thrive long before this in Africa.

The emphasis of my point is on the effects of European intervention in the continent.

I apologise though, I should have been more specific. We don't actually know that for sure because much of African history prior to the arrival of Europeans has disappeared, but based on what historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have to go on, yes, of course warfare of course existed, but 'tribalism' as we and Africans consider it today - as a concept and social phenomenon - didn't exist.

What evidence does show is that powerful kingdoms existed in areas like Mali, Benin and Kongo, there was an empire in a region formerly known as Songhai and Ethiopia. These monarchies had complex political structures and populations in the hundreds of thousands. Hardly 'tribal'. In other areas, populations were more fragmented and had more local-based structures - the Kru of Liberia were one such society.

As for slavery, evidence available shows that while slavery did exist, it wasn't so widespread. Usually, slaves were prisoners of war. Slave practises, generally in West Africa, were therefore low-scale and did not devastate entire communities unlike European-led slavery. Slaves had rights, and could attain citizenship but slavery was not heriditry, i.e. if you're father or mother were slaves, you were a slave, your kids were slaves etc.

The European innovation in the slave trade was 'chattel' slavery which was thoroughgoing in its capture and export methods, it was heridatary and slaves had absolutely no rights whatsover. They weren't even human.

It was mainly chiefs who were employed and armed by slave traders to capture other Africans. This did contribute, at the time and thereafter, to increased warfare and political instability. There's evidence to show that by the late 18th century, sub-Saharan Africa was importing 200,000 muskets a year. So this was just 'trade' was it?

Do you have any credible evidence (and by that I mean recognised outside of Afro-centric academia) to support this notion?

I don't know what you mean by 'Afro-centric academia' Is this some 'Urban' thing? Like, 'Afro-centric' is a by-word for 'African' or 'Black' or 'African studies'... who the hell are you talking about? Why would you consider this kind of material less credible than other sources? Are 'Western-centric' sources more credible, do you think? Do you want to deny Africa a history?

Here's my sources: http://www.nuim.ie/academic/anthropology/AAI/IJA/vol2/story.html

That article's good, but the bibliography is even better:

Bayart, J.-F. 1993. The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. Longman.
Brown, M.E. 1993. Causes and Implications of Ethnic Conflict. in Brown, M.E. (ed.), Ethnic Conflict and International Security. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Davidson, B. 1992. The Black Man's Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation State. James Currey.
Ekeh, P.P., 1990. Social Anthropology and Two Contrasting Uses of Tribalism in Africa. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 32, No. 4.
Human Rights Watch, 1995. Playing the 'Communal Card': Communal Violence and Human Rights. published by Human Rights Watch.
Leys, C. 1996. The Rise and Fall of Development Theory. EAEP/Indiana/James Currey.
Mafeje, A., 1971. The Ideology of 'Tribalism'. Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2.
Nederveen Pieterse, J., 1996. Varieties of Ethnic Politics and Ethnicity Discourse. in Wilmsen, E.N., and P. McAllister (eds.), The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sklar, R.L., 1967. Political Science and National Integration - a Radical Approach. Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1.
Stephen, L. 1996. The Creation and Re-creation of Ethnicity: Lessons from the Zapotec and Mixtec of Oaxaca. Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 2.
Vail, L. 1989. Introduction: Ethnicity in Southern African History. in Vail, L. (ed.), The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa James Currey/ University of California Press

Bayart and Ekeh are particularly good. Also check out Terence Ranger in 'The Invention of Traditions'.

All things that occurred in other parts of the World, but without the same effect. Funny that.

We're talking about Africa, and Africa is a very particular context. It wasn't the same in Latin America. One of the aspects of European colonisation in Latin America, and a persistent feature (outcome?) of its problems is that the colonisers didn't practise indirect rule. Power and state institutions remained, and still largely remain, in the hands of Europeans and European descendants. Social relations set in motion systems of relations in those countries that have persisted despite indigenous peoples and descendants from African slaves developing alternative forms of political action including trades unions and churches, through which populist leaders derived power. These relations are, now, changing in response to globalisation - Chavez in Venezuela is an example of this. But no, indirect rule wasn't a feature of Latin American colonisation. You're really talking about two very, very different contexts which have produced very different situations.

Again, all things that occurred in other parts of the World, but without the same effect.

Maybe you missed out on what I was saying. My linking of the effects of the slave trade and the effects of colonialism is there to show that connected social processes have generated the situation Africa is in today. And, again, we're talking about Africa specifically, so I don't see how you make a point here

That’s a rather sweeping sociological statement to describe an entire continent. Would you happen to have supporting evidence for this or is it just more fancy?

I think I covered this above. If you read the Storey article linked above, you'll see that ethnicity and the term 'tribe' is extremely problematic. Its role in African colonialism is nearly unique as anthropologists working for colonial governments literally created these social units, which were futher made real by legislation and political relations between coloniser and colonised. We can only assume, firstly, that these conditions didn't exist prior to colonialism. Also, different social relations emerged as a result colonialism in West Africa. Comparative modern ethnic studies, at least, suggests that for want of a better word, 'less developed' societies have more fluid boundaries and societies aren't necessarily tied to territory for their identity; neither are they necessarily tied to one ethnic identity, people in developing and developed worlds can be members of different ethnic groups.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

By incorporation, I mean use of means beyond simple trade relations - such as arming of Africans for the purposes of supplying them to slave drivers - i.e. through violence - to grease the wheels of the early market economy.

Evidence please of this.

I hope you're not implying the slave trade was OK because you think it somehow counts as legitimate trade.

Of course it was legitimate trade or are you saying we should judge cultures on the basis of our modern perspective?

I apologise though, I should have been more specific. We don't actually know that for sure because much of African history prior to the arrival of Europeans has disappeared, but based on what historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have to go on, yes, of course warfare of course existed, but 'tribalism' as we and Africans consider it today - as a concept and social phenomenon - didn't exist.

And still you present no evidence of this.

As for slavery, evidence available shows that while slavery did exist, it wasn't so widespread. Usually, slaves were prisoners of war. Slave practises, generally in West Africa, were therefore low-scale and did not devastate entire communities unlike European-led slavery. Slaves had rights, and could attain citizenship but slavery was not heriditry, i.e. if you're father or mother were slaves, you were a slave, your kids were slaves etc.

What evidence?

There's evidence to show that by the late 18th century, sub-Saharan Africa was importing 200,000 muskets a year. So this was just 'trade' was it?

What evidence?

I don't know what you mean by 'Afro-centric academia' Is this some 'Urban' thing?

No it’s an ideological term. And I don’t believe you don’t know what it is.

Why would you consider this kind of material less credible than other sources?

Yes - any school that seeks to promote a political agenda over the verasity of what it is attempting to teach should be considered less credible.

Do you want to deny Africa a history?

Don’t be so melodramatic.

Here's my sources: http://www.nuim.ie/academic/anthropology/AAI/IJA/vol2/story.html

The article presents and cites numerous theory’s including theories that contradict yours. Hardly a source.

But no, indirect rule wasn't a feature of Latin American colonisation. You're really talking about two very, very different contexts which have produced very different situations.

Utter, utter rubbish. Indirect rule was practiced there well into the ninetieth century.

Maybe you missed out on what I was saying. My linking of the effects of the slave trade and the effects of colonialism is there to show that connected social processes have generated the situation Africa is in today. And, again, we're talking about Africa specifically, so I don't see how you make a point here

Could you repeat that in English, san waffle please, as it appears to be saying very little?

I think I covered this above.

No you haven’t. The only evidence you produced was an article with leading sources that agreed with some of what you were saying as one on numerous (and often conflicting) explanations of Africa’s situation.

Beyond that you’ve covered nothing - but you have managed to inject some moral indignation for good effect, I’ll grant you that.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Evidence please of this.

For a man requesting evidence, you're making an awful lot of claims yourself without ever feeling the need to provide the same.

I mean, sure...the conversation could boil down to both of you saying "prove that" to each and every statement the other is making, but seriously....all you seem to do is insist on evidence for any point you're not dismissing with the well-thought-out refutes of the type of "thats utter rubbish", or "I can't understand you, and its waffle besides".

As per usual, this topic has followed a typical course. We see the OP ask his initial question and take no further part in the discussion. We see people get indignant at the suggestion that its not "the white man's" fault. We see other people get indignant at the suggestion that it is. And while the generalisations are flying, we get some pointing out that generalising an entire continent is unfeasible in the first palce, while we see others generalising that one entire continent should produce the same type of result as another did given somewhat-similar histories (if we generalise the history enough as well).

And throughout it all, I only have one reason question. Is the OP ever going to actually join in the discusison he/she started?

DadaKopf

Thanks for that, bonkey . Although I think I've *tried* to explain the influence of Europe on Africa's current state. I also provided an article that actually, fairly accurately sets out my point of view.

TC, I actually explained my point of view to the the guy who wrote that article and he agreed with it. The important point that I didn't get across clearly is this: (1) without the slave trade, colonialism and globalisation, a different set of circumstances would have prevailed in Africa, but (2) due to the presence of these processes, Africa developed in the way that it did as a result of European power and influence, its gradual incorporation into the global economic and political system and as a result of the manners in which new pressures caused by Western influence were received by and reacted to by Africans themselves.

I've just tried to lay out a common thread so people can begin, maybe, to think about the influence of colonialism a little differently from 'populist misunderstandings'.

Where exactly, TC, does that article contradict my posts?

Don't worry, I won't get into a slagging match.

Hobbes

Haven't fully read the whole thread but the OP is way over generalising it. You could probably take each country in Africa on its own and find numerous different reasons as to why it is/isn't a mess today.

Lumping them altogether looking for a common cause is kind of silly.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

For a man requesting evidence, you're making an awful lot of claims yourself without ever feeling the need to provide the same.

I’m not making any claims; I’m disputing the claims of others - the onus is upon those claming that sub-Saharan Africa’s problems are down to European colonialism to substantiate them, not for me to disprove unsubstantiated claims.

DadaKopf wrote:

Although I think I've *tried* to explain the influence of Europe on Africa's current state. I also provided an article that actually, fairly accurately sets out my point of view.

It does not. It sets out only part of your view as well as setting forward contradictory views. It puts forward the theory that “criticises those who would attribute ethnic consciousness in Africa solely to the machinations of colonial and post-colonial politicians”, disagreeing with the slavery motivations that have been repeatedly cited.

Repeatedly we are being painted a picture of a happy and stable sub-Saharan Africa, ruined by European influence and exploitation. Yet for all these claims, all we have been given to support this is often contradictory theory and absolutely no facts. This is what I dispute, as to date in this thread it has been presented as a political fait accompli when in reality all that has been is a theory has been presented to us as fact, dressed up in waffle.

Don't worry, I won't get into a slagging match.

Please spare me the sanctimony.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not making any claims;

So your comment, for example, about Indirect rule being practiced in Latin America well into the ninetieth century wasn't a claim.

What was it then?

I’m disputing the claims of others

Yes, you are. And how are you disputing them?

You're disputing them by claiming some of their arguments are rubbish, by claiming that distinctions they have said exist and are relevant do not in fact exist (as just mentioned above), and so forth.

- the onus is upon those claming that sub-Saharan Africa’s problems are down to European colonialism to substantiate them, not for me to disprove unsubstantiated claims.

Fine, but you appear to be deciding the claims are unsibstantiated because you don't accept the substantiation provided. Its not because you have provided information from equally/more credible sources to show that the claims made are incorrect, or that you have argued succinctly why the reasoning is flawed, but rather because you are declaring it to be so.

It does not. It sets out only part of your view as well as setting forward contradictory views. It puts forward the theory that “criticises those who would attribute ethnic consciousness in Africa solely to the machinations of colonial and post-colonial politicians”, disagreeing with the slavery motivations that have been repeatedly cited.

Unless those motivations were cited as the sole reason for something, then there is no contradiction.

I haven't seen Dada suggest anything was the sole reason. Indeed, I've seen him argue that there's been a string of factors, as well as a loss of information meaning that certain historical aspects can only be conjectured.

Repeatedly we are being painted a picture of a happy and stable sub-Saharan Africa, ruined by European influence and exploitation.

Where?

Dada's comment about slavery existing, but mostly as an offshoot of war, perhaps? Or the comment that we don't know as much as we'd like to because we've lost so much historical knowledge?

Yet for all these claims,

What claims? No, really. What claims?

I've gone and re-read this entire thread, and I can't see a single line in a single post maknig this allegation other than you insisting its whats being done.

So seriously,...can you show me what I'm missing, because I can't find it but you seem to be suggesting that not only has it been claimed, but its been claimed often.

Or is this another claim-thats-not-a-claim so you don't feel that you have to actually support your claims.

This is what I dispute, as to date in this thread it has been presented as a political fait accompli when in reality all that has been is a theory has been presented to us as fact, dressed up in waffle.

And here we have another claim-thats-not-a-claim. The stuff you're refuting is nonsensical because....well....because you've said so. And - by your own suggestion - you've managed to show it to be nonsensical without making a single claim about anything!!!


jc

Hobbes

I think the point is that once a person explains where they got thier source from (even if that source is flawed) if you want to go out and point out that it is wrong/contridictory then it is up to you to do so.

Remember the whole point of asking for sources isn't an excuse to berate the poster but to cross reference and/or to point out why you believe thier source is wrong.

Thats probably where the contention is. (Not having a go at you or anything).

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Yes, you are. And how are you disputing them?

Primarily by demanding that they are backed up with more than theory.

Fine, but you appear to be deciding the claims are unsibstantiated because you don't accept the substantiation provided.

There is no substantiation provided. A theory is presented without evidence and when pressed on evidence the only evidence proffered is someone else presenting part of the theory, again without evidence.

Unless those motivations were cited as the sole reason for something, then there is no contradiction.

That it was the sole reason for something has been implied throughout, with the exception of Wicknight tried backtracking later on in his arguments.

I haven't seen Dada suggest anything was the sole reason. Indeed, I've seen him argue that there's been a string of factors, as well as a loss of information meaning that certain historical aspects can only be conjectured.

What string of other factors? Where? Any factors presented by Wicknight and Dada have all been directly and not so indirectly attributed to European colonialism.

Where?

It is a natural extension of the original premise that European colonialism was at the root of all Africa’s evils.

What claims? No, really. What claims?

Are you suggesting that Wicknight and Dada made no claims? What have I being disagreeing with then? They state something and that is not a claim? Are you reading the same thread?

And here we have another claim-thats-not-a-claim. The stuff you're refuting is nonsensical because....well....because you've said so.

No, it is nonsensical because it has been presented as fact without credible evidence.

shotamoose

Corinthian, I'd like you to provide some back-up for one of your claims in particular, please. You said "ethnic divisions and border issues exist everywhere, and they do cause conflict everywhere", but "you cannot use this as an excuse for why sub-Saharan Africa is how it is".

Well, I've no intention of using it as an 'excuse' but I do think it is a major cause of conflict in SSA, something you seem keen to de-emphasise, probably because those ethnic divisions and border issues are to a large degree legacies of the made-up countries left behind by colonists.

The thing is, ethnic divisions are much greater in Sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions - see page 9 of this research, which says that the 20 most ethnically 'fractionalized' countries in the world are in Sub-Saharan Africa (Yugoslavia was at number 13, but we all know what happened there).

So, are you saying that ethnic divisions are no greater in Sub-Saharan Africa? Because that's obviously not true. Or are you saying that ethnic divisions somehow cause less conflict in Africa than they do elsewhere? If so, it's another case of "show me the evidence", and no more of this vague theoretical waffle please.

The Corinthian

shotamoose wrote:

Well, I've no intention of using it as an 'excuse' but I do think it is a major cause of conflict in SSA,

That’s a fair point.

something you seem keen to de-emphasise, probably because those ethnic divisions and border issues are to a large degree legacies of the made-up countries left behind by colonists.

And that it not. You assume that that this was as a result of the national divisions that were left behind. Were that the case then had the divisions more closely mapped the ethnic differences in Africa (potentially resulting in three of four times as many separate nations), then such ethnic conflict would not exist. Can you demonstrate that? Or would conflict have continued unabated? Instead of countless civil wars, would we then see countless national wars for the continents resources?

Indeed, what you’re doing is promoting another slant to the “it was all Europe’s fault” theory and expecting us to take your word for it, never considering whether anything would have differed that had Europe had a different relationship with Africa.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

What string of other factors? Where? Any factors presented by Wicknight and Dada have all been directly and not so indirectly attributed to European colonialism.

So you see the comments that policies of the likes of the WTO, IMF and World Bank haven't helped as colonialism? That we still, in fact, rule these countries by proxy or something?

Sure, such comments may have followed on from colonialism, but what would one expect given that they occurred afterwards?

As Dada pointed out, we've rather successfully destroyed most of any ability we may have had to collect any truly definite and detailed history of Africa pre-colonialism. Now, unless you'd like to prove him wrong by pointing us at such a definitive, detailed history, there's not much more we can do in terms of looking at conditions in detail pre-colonialism. So that leaves colonialism and everything since then....and everything since then in one way or another has "led on" from colonialism.

It is a natural extension of the original premise that European colonialism was at the root of all Africa’s evils.

What original premise?

Who made this original premise?

Wicknight, who's already reworded his comments? Dada who's acknowledged other problems and the existence of war / slavery before hand? The OP who didn't comment on it at all? Seriously...can you link to the post where this premise was originally made in this thread?

Are you suggesting that Wicknight and Dada made no claims?

No. I'm suggesting that you ignored some of their claims in order to singularise others and effectively re-interpret what it was they were saying.

Before you even posted on the thread, Wicknight asked are we going to start summing up an entire continent in a few easy to understand (but completely over simplified) responses, and followed that with a comment that The economic and social reasons for each African countries situation is unique, long and complex

You decided to ignore this and treat his answer to "is X to blame" with a "yes" to mean that he had answered "is X solely to blame". And while thats not unreasonable in itself, bear in mind that - as I pointed out - Wick already acknowledged the incorrectness of gneralising all of Africa with simplified explanations. Did you honestly think that he meant "all over-simplifications except the ones that you could interpret earlier posts of mine to contain" when he said that?

Dada has acknowledged pre-colonial "lack of utopia", as well as commenting on post-colonial problems, and yet you construe the arguments as though people are claiming everything was hunky-dory before the colonial days, and that all of the problems were created by the colonials. He's even admitted to the complicity of some African in some of the issues, so clearly he's not suggesting that its exclusively colonial faults either.

What have I being disagreeing with then?

Thats what I'm trying to figure out.

AS far as I can see, you're disagreeing with the concept that the white man deserves blame, and you're deliberately interpreting other poster's comments to be more singular in how they assign blame than (I believe) the original authors intended.

They were asked a question. Can colonists be blamed. They were not asked Are colonists solely to blame, but this is the question you seem to be interpreting their responses as answers for.

Also, as I've argued above, you seem to be ignoring certain comments made, and then claiming that your "one-sided" interpretation is justified because people haven't acknowleged the very stuff that was in the comments you ignored!!!

No, it is nonsensical because it has been presented as fact without credible evidence.

So you will presumably agree that anything you have presented as fact without credible evidence (e.g. your comments about indirect rule in Latin America) is also nonsensical???

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

So you see the comments that policies of the likes of the WTO, IMF and World Bank haven't helped as colonialism? That we still, in fact, rule these countries by proxy or something?

Are we redefining European colonialism now?

As Dada pointed out, we've rather successfully destroyed most of any ability we may have had to collect any truly definite and detailed history of Africa pre-colonialism.

Pointed out but didn’t back up, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take his word for it.

Now, unless you'd like to prove him wrong by pointing us at such a definitive, detailed history

Bonkey, honestly that really is a dire argument. Would you like to give us a similar definitive, detailed history of stone-age man or Australian aborigines? Or did we burn all their books too?

What original premise?

I’m not repeating myself.

Wicknight, who's already reworded his comments?

Backtracked.

Dada who's acknowledged other problems and the existence of war / slavery before hand?

He understated them in passing.

No. I'm suggesting that you ignored some of their claims in order to singularise others and effectively re-interpret what it was they were saying.

No. I have repeatedly and consistently questioned the assertion that it all comes down to European colonialism. They must demonstrate that they are doing more than just spouting unsubstantiated theories.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Are we redefining European colonialism now?

I wouldn't have considered the WTO, the IMF, or the World Bank to be European colonialism, so unless they are, I'm not redefining anything. I'm stating that these were mentioned as problems, so unless you feel they are colonial problems, my point that the poster in question clearly couldn't be laying all blame at the colonial's feet still holds water.

Pointed out but didn’t back up, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take his word for it.
...
Bonkey, honestly that really is a dire argument. Would you like to give us a similar definitive, detailed history of stone-age man or Australian aborigines? Or did we burn all their books too?

Its quite difficult (impossible, actually) to prove that we don't have a detailed history. It is easy, however, to prove we do have one...by supplying it.

Backtracked.

As I pointed out, unless you understand his comment about generalisations to mean he was saying only his generalisations were sound, he had backtracked - or whatever term you wish to use - before you started even posting on the thread.

He understated them in passing.

So you acknowledge that he referenced them....which immediately asks how you can suggest he was implying the exact opposite - that such problems didnt exist?

No. I have repeatedly and consistently questioned the assertion that it all comes down to European colonialism.

But no-one has made that assertion. You've been ignoring key points about their argument which indicate that both explicitly admit there were other factors....except in the post I'm replying to where you acknowledge its referenced but downplayed.

Sure, you can argue they they're exaggerating the colonials' importance, but no-one in this thread has suggested it was the only factor, which is the position you're attacking.

never considering whether anything would have differed that had Europe had a different relationship with Africa.

What might have happened doesn't matter. "You can't prove he wouldn't have died anyway" doesn't absolve one from murder. I can't see a situation where the same doesn't apply for any other wrong-doing. As soon as you make the decisions, you carry the responsibility.

How long you carry that responsibility for, and what the reprecussions for that responsibility are....thats an entirely seperate question.

edanto

The Corinthian wrote:

....questioning everything....

I've read through your posts and I'm left wondering.....what's your opinion on the original question?

What are the most influential factors contributing to the sorry state of Africa, in your opinon?

shotamoose

The Corinthian wrote:

You assume that that this was as a result of the national divisions that were left behind.

Well, the characteristics of a country depend on its borders, and the borders of African countries were largely set by the colonists, so yes, the ethnic fractionalization of Africa is largely a result of what colonisation left behind. Oviously.

Were that the case then had the divisions more closely mapped the ethnic differences in Africa (potentially resulting in three of four times as many separate nations), then such ethnic conflict would not exist. Can you demonstrate that?

This is another example of you taking a straightforward question, turning it into a claim and demanding that the questioner 'prove it'. How about you just answer the question you were asked? Do ethnic divisions somehow cause less conflict in Africa than they do elsewhere? Or does the higher level of ethnic divisions account for a lot of the violence in Africa?

But as it happens, it does look like ethnic fractionalization causes conflicts. Of the countries with the highest fractionalization in that research paper I linked to, very few have escaped either war or massive corruption (eg the top two, Liberia and Uganda).

Indeed, what you’re doing is promoting another slant to the “it was all Europe’s fault” theory and expecting us to take your word for it

Don't take it personally, but if crazy borders make for crazy countries then Europe obviously does need to take some responsibility. And as my earlier post demonstrated I am quite clearly not putting all of Africa's problems down to colonialism, so you can quit constructing your little straw men now.

never considering whether anything would have differed that had Europe had a different relationship with Africa.

Er, that's exactly what I'm considering. That's what I was considering when I compared the effects of different types of colonialism. Please try and pay more attention next time.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Its quite difficult (impossible, actually) to prove that we don't have a detailed history. It is easy, however, to prove we do have one...by supplying it.

Irrelevant. You are suggesting that there was such a written history for the African continent that preceded European colonisation and, furthermore, that it was destroyed by said European colonisation. I’m not the one making all the unfounded assumptions.

As I pointed out, unless you understand his comment about generalisations to mean he was saying only his generalisations were sound, he had backtracked - or whatever term you wish to use - before you started even posting on the thread.

I understood and he did not imply that to begin. Please show where he did.

But no-one has made that assertion.

Sure they have, the implication has been there. If you ask a simple yes / no answer to “do sub-Saharan Africa’s problems ultimately stem from her experience of European colonialism?”, what do you think their answer will be?

I invite Dada, Wicknight and even shotamoose to answer that question.

Sure, you can argue they they're exaggerating the colonials' importance, but no-one in this thread has suggested it was the only factor, which is the position you're attacking.

In fairness, that is all I’m trying to suggest, looking back on my previous posts I didn’t explain that adequately.

What might have happened doesn't matter. "You can't prove he wouldn't have died anyway" doesn't absolve one from murder.

Not the same thing. A man commits suicide, but if another man is simply in his vicinity at the time, does that mean he murdered the man?

How long you carry that responsibility for, and what the reprecussions for that responsibility are....thats an entirely seperate question.

Agreed.

shotamoose wrote:

This is another example of you taking a straightforward question, turning it into a claim and demanding that the questioner 'prove it'. How about you just answer the question you were asked?

Of course I answered the question, of course ethnic divisions contribute to conflict, however I disputed that the border drawing that Europe carried out would have had a real effect on these tensions.

Two or more ethnic groups would still have remained geographically next to each other, one with more resources than the other - do you really think that an arbitrary concept such as a national border would have much of a difference to ethnic conflicts? Might civil war not have simply been replaced with national war?

Er, that's exactly what I'm considering. That's what I was considering when I compared the effects of different types of colonialism. Please try and pay more attention next time.

Could have fooled me.

edanto wrote:

What are the most influential factors contributing to the sorry state of Africa, in your opinon?

My own opinion - and I stress it is only an option or theory and not fact by any means - is that sub-Saharan Africa, once she came in contact with the outside World (not only the Europeans, but also the Arabs) were and still are unable to make the social and technological jump necessary to compete with these nations. This is also because there were few if any actual nations - some pretty well developed states and empires existed (although ironically the Arabs destroyed more of those than the Europeans), but for the most part Africa was pretty tribal, ethnically fractionated and primitive. The jump to the modern World was, and in much of Africa still appears to be, too great.

Unfortunately sub-Saharan Africa had no Rama IV or Meiji restoration - instead most were what we would consider little more then tribal warlords, such as the famous Zulu king Shaka. As a result, with the exception of a handful of, often short lived, kingdoms and empires (and yes there are exceptions, but the exceptions don’t cover the entire continent), sub-Saharan Africa has remained relatively primitive and highly tribal, with all that come with that.

So blaming Europe, or Islam, for what has happened in sub-Saharan Africa is thus, IMHO, like shaking your fist at a hurricane. Clash and / or interaction of cultures is inevitable. Asia was able to modernise with far greater ease - Thailand and Japan in particular were even able to resist colonialism for the most part because they were able to modernise to compete.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not the one making all the unfounded assumptions.

Not all of them, no, just some of them.

No-one on this thread has made all of them.

I understood and he did not imply that to begin. Please show where he did.

I already quoted the relevant piece when I was forming my point.

So at this point, I'll return your "I'm not repeating myself" comment from before right back to you.

Sure they have, the implication has been there.

No, it hasn't.

You've decided that its there. Along the way have ignored the fact that one of the posters has recognised the limits of oversimplification to a single issue for a single continent, and the other has included a list of non-colonial factors while you claim he's implying its all colonialism's fault.

If you ask a simple yes / no answer to “do sub-Saharan Africa’s problems ultimately stem from her experience of European colonialism?”, what do you think their answer will be?

I invite Dada, Wicknight and even shotamoose to answer that question.

I think they'd be foolish to answer a question weighted little better than "yes or no - have you stopped beating your wife yet", but its their perogative.

I'm certainly not going to suggest that I know which of the two options they'd chose if they did answer the question.

The one thing I'm reasonably certain of is that Wicknight would once more point out how reducing the situtation to a single issue for a single continent is inherently dodgy.

In fairness, that is all I’m trying to suggest,

Well lets leave it there then.

w66w66

. Artificial states obviously contributed to the problems we see today in Africa, as artificial are inherently flawed, with many of the conflicts we see and hear about on a daily occurrence in news stemming from artificial states. But the fact of the matter is that, South Africa, a nation riddled with ethnic tension, is the most successful nation in Africa. Not to mention Zimbabwe, which in its days under white rule when know as Rhodesia, was also riddled with ethnic tensions. It also happened to be the most the successful country in Africa at the time, far richer than many of mono ethnic nations in Africa. Coherent Artificial states obviously contributed to the problems we see today in Africa, as artificial are inherently flawed, with many of the conflicts we see and hear about on a daily occurrence in news stemming from artificial states. But the fact of the matter is that, South Africa, a nation riddled with ethnic tension, is the most successful nation in Africa. Not to mention Zimbabwe, which in its days under white rule when know as Rhodesia, was also riddled with ethnic tensions. It also happened to be the most the successful country in Africa at the time, far richer than many of mono ethnic nations in Africa. For me the most rational and Coherent explanation for African poverty is genetics, it seems baffling to me otherwise, that base level economies brimming with natural resources such as oil and diamonds and also many areas with excellent agricultural possibilities can only achieve 2 or 3 percent economic growth annually. Even stable, democratic and mono ethnic countries like Ghana, with a base line economy, a nation with oil and diamonds, can only achieve 3 percent growth a year.

edanto

w66w66 wrote:

For me the most rational and Coherent explanation for African poverty is genetics

You must be joking. What about debt? In 2002, developing countries (around the world) got $58bn in aid, but paid out $342bn in debt repayments. Genetics....pah.... I hope those blinkers hurt the sides of your head.

The Corinthian wrote:

sub-Saharan Africa, once she came in contact with the outside World (not only the Europeans, but also the Arabs) were and still are unable to make the social and technological jump necessary to compete with these nations

If your reason for them being unable to make this jump doesn't take into account 4 centuries of their social, political and military leaders being captured and sold to slave traders then you must also be joking. They couldn't make a technological leap because they were overly 'tribal'? Could you develop that a little please?

I was told in Ghana that every time a slave ship appeared on the horizon, fighting would break out amongst the tribes and prisoners-of-war would be sold to the traders at the castles. Victories in the skirmishes would ebb and flow with time, so the brave and strong that took part in the fighting from both sides would end up in a dungeon waiting to be loaded on to a ship.

You must take account of this, and subsequent trade practices that have exploited those countries, when starting to explain the differences that we see today.

Karl Hungus

edanto wrote:

If your reason for them being unable to make this jump doesn't take into account 4 centuries of their social, political and military leaders being captured and sold to slave traders then you must also be joking. They couldn't make a technological leap because they were overly 'tribal'? Could you develop that a little please?

I was told in Ghana that every time a slave ship appeared on the horizon, fighting would break out amongst the tribes and prisoners-of-war would be sold to the traders at the castles. Victories in the skirmishes would ebb and flow with time, so the brave and strong that took part in the fighting from both sides would end up in a dungeon waiting to be loaded on to a ship.

You must take account of this, and subsequent trade practices that have exploited those countries, when starting to explain the differences that we see today.

The simple notion that they'd fight amongst themselves so that they could sell off their own kind rather than take any form of stand against the colonial types would seem to substantiate, rather than debunk The Corinthian's opinion. It would certainly suggest that they had neither the initiative, forsight, will, or possibly even the want, to modernize and compete against colonial civilizations.

DadaKopf

Eh, no... if we're talking about the colonial period, my point was, actually, that Africans were faced with the reality of having to deal with a number of industrialised European states invading their territories and claiming ownership over them and over the people within them.

Again, this is a gross oversimplification, but ultimately African leaders were faced with nearly unassailable European power, but at the same time Africans did everything they could to bargain with the colonial masters for various privileges, semi-autonomy, income, trading opportunities etc. In short, Africans did have initiative and foresight and did want to modernise, but you have to understand that Europe was not really willing to allow them to modernise, or modernise their own colonies as they were really set up to extract cheap resources to fuel their industries and compete against their neighbours (trade/commerce was seen as a kind of war back then).

The point of my post was simple:

• Atlantic slave trade - influx of Westerners plundering human wealth - Africans respond in way they can to minimise shock and seek opportunities to preserve power, which have other effects further down the line
  
• Colonisation - further influx of Westerners plundering enslaving populations within the continent and plundering mineral wealth during which time, Africans proactively respond in way they can to minimise shock and seek opportunities to preserve power, which have other effects further down the line
  
• Globalisation - further influx of Western capital, accelerated extraction of human and mineral wealth increasingly via Westernised African elites during which time, through for example WTO and EU trade treaties, Africans proactively respond in way they can to minimise shock and seek opportunities to preserve power, which will have other effects further down the line

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Eh, no... if we're talking about the colonial period, my point was, actually, that Africans were faced with the reality of having to deal with a number of industrialised European states invading their territories and claiming ownership over them and over the people within them.

Just like Asia, for example. However there the reaction was largely different, with two Asian nations ultimately being able to modernise and repel European colonization. So if the same thing was attempted in two continents and one was able to react in a vastly different manner to the other, then there must be another factor involved.

You repeatedly cite the slave trade, however never convincingly. You claim that it accelerated conflict and destroyed communities in sub-Saharan Africa, but never manage to supply metrics, let alone any correlation of those metrics that may support this theory.

As such, these theories end up holding as much water as those proposed by Stormfront, with the possible exception that the latter are less fashionable.

Again, this is a gross oversimplification

Which unfortunately is what your arguments seem to be based upon.

It has become a popular truth that European colonialism is the root of all sub-Saharan Africa’s woes, simply because it is seldom questioned today - and when it is questioned we see it is largely based upon unsubstantiated theory atop unsubstantiated theory.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

You claim that it accelerated conflict and destroyed communities in sub-Saharan Africa, but never manage to supply metrics,

/me looks back through thread...

Dadakopf wrote:

It has to be said this process took time to have its effects. By around 1540, possibly 40,000 African slaves were sent to Spanish colonies; that number increased to 857,000 by 1650. By the mid-19th century, around 12 million African slaves landed in the Americas according to ship manifests.

And before you decide that "supply metrics" means "supply metrics, with references, that I haven't already decided are irrelevant or questionable" I'll point out that you have neither asked for references on these metrics, nor refuted them yet nor explained why they are meaningless.

Instead, you've just claimed that he hasn't supplied them at all.

jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

And before you decide that "supply metrics" means "supply metrics, with references, that I haven't already decided are irrelevant or questionable" I'll point out that you have neither asked for references on these metrics, nor refuted them yet nor explained why they are meaningless.

Really, well two can play at that game:

“By around 1540, possibly 10,000 African slaves were sent to Spanish colonies; that number increased to 45,000 by 1650. By the mid-19th century, around 120,000 African slaves landed in the Americas according to ship manifests.”

:rolleyes:

DadaKopf

As such, these theories end up holding as much water as those proposed by Stormfront, with the possible exception that the latter are less fashionable.

I'll choose to ignore what you're suggesting here. Very childish.

You repeatedly cite the slave trade, however never convincingly. You claim that it accelerated conflict and destroyed communities in sub-Saharan Africa, but never manage to supply metrics, let alone any correlation of those metrics that may support this theory.

I actually haven't the time the dredge through the dense journal articles and books I've read on the subject just to satisfy your pedantry, but I gave you a list of much of the stuff I've read. If you like, I can send you a couple of the articles, but I don't know if you'd actually be bothered reading them, and they're huge. BUt I did, actually, supply figures about the slave trade and information about African society. Asking for 'correlative metrics' on social processes for which gathering data and even producing quantative methodologies is extremely unreliable is a bit rich coming from you since you haven't 'proven' any of your own comments in relation to Latin America or Asia or even provided the most basic facts or statistics.

Yes, Asia was different, so it was different. Why? Culture, resource endowments, geography, trade and political relations, opportunities, costs, extent of and exact form of colonisation, location within global economic system etc. etc. I can't see how Africa's resource endowments and geography, for example, equates to "Africans resist modernisation".

So if the same thing was attempted in two continents and one was able to react in a vastly different manner to the other, then there must be another factor involved.

Where ever did I say colonialism was the only factor involved? It's a factor, and an important one, a common thread, really. The issue of colonialism was brought up, I made some comments about it. I actually connected the slave trade/colonialism/globalisation to processes of political economy - "Africa's incorporation into the global economic system", which actually means that slave trade/colonialism/globalisation, IMHO, are closely related types of incorporation, which itself means that Africa's problems are not simply down to "colonialism" but the whole process of development.

I don't know why I bother.

I only wanted to make comments about colonialism, it's you who's dragged the whole discussion into colonialism. I never wanted the thread to focus on it because I know there are other reasons why Africa is the poorest continent on the world.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I actually haven't the time the dredge through the dense journal articles and books I've read on the subject just to satisfy your pedantry, but I gave you a list of much of the stuff I've read. If you like, I can send you a couple of the articles, but I don't know if you'd actually be bothered reading them, and they're huge.

I’ve no intention of doing your research for you. And citing a large slab of text and claiming that you argument is backed up somewhere within it is as intellectually dishonest as you can get, TBH.

Where ever did I say colonialism was the only factor involved? It's a factor, and an important one, a common thread, really.

It’s the only factor you addressed. Indeed, between that and globalisation, they appear the only factors you address. And no, you’ve not established it’s importance, given you’ve not really addressed any other factors.

I don't know why I bother.

Ideology, I’d expect..

I only wanted to make comments about colonialism, it's you who's dragged the whole discussion into colonialism. I never wanted the thread to focus on it because I know there are other reasons why Africa is the poorest continent on the world.

You wanted to make comments about colonialism and had no intention of discussing any other factors that may have been involved in sub-Saharan Africa’s plight, so trying to blame me for the emphasis on colonialism here is frankly a little laughable.

DadaKopf

I’ve no intention of doing your research for you. And citing a large slab of text and claiming that you argument is backed up somewhere within it is as intellectually dishonest as you can get, TBH.

Sorry, Corinthian, I've done the research, and I'm not going to type out Ekeh's, Ranger's, Fage's and Bayart's, Storey's etc. research just for you and I haven't the time to go back through them. And anyway, you just said you're not interested in reading them, even though I offered to send the articles to you.

In any case, I think you're well capable of Googling "Atlantic slave trade statistics" or something like that. You'll come across Lovejoy's analysis of the slave trade, replete with statistics. I'll help you: http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm. The Wikipedia "Slavery" entry is good, too.

w66w66

If you where to cut the wealth and development of the world along simply broad ethnic lines, and then where to take that structure and compare it to wealth of ethnic groups in ethnically diverse nations, a similar model will occur, with whites and oriental Asians been quite successful, north Africans, Arabs and Hispanics modestly successful, and sub-Saharan Africans relatively unsuccessful. This model also correlates with the different IQ’s of these ethnic groups. This agrument of genetics is of course simplified argument, that doesn’t take important issue’s such as debt, agricultural subsidies, and the brain drain into account. But just because it’s a simplified argument doesn’t mean we can merely dismiss it, nor can we dismiss it merely because it’s purported by right wing loonies such as Stormfront.

DadaKopf

Shut up.