What have Africans ever done for us?

[David Johnson]

"What I meant was that you appear (to me) to be dismissing the post-colonial corruption & infighting as minor/irrelevant issues"

No. I think corruption and infighting has made things worse and held some African countries back post-independence.

I agree this is a good time to bring this part of the thread to a close.

Thank you for your time and once again I apologise for getting overly sarcastic and patronising etc. Like I said, it is a weakness.

Like my old teacher used to say to me "Must do better!"

[Milk Tray Man]

And thank you David. I've enjoyed it (for the most part!)

Until next time.

[Arginald Valleywater]

And let us not forget their cavemen attitude to birth control. I had 10 kids and seven died of malnutrition. Try having less kids and there will be more food to go round. If your thick husband can be convinced that wearing a condom won't make him gay, infertile and lose his status down the local pub then you might stand half a chance.......if not prepare for extinction like the dinosaurs.

[Sam Slater]

Dave says:

[quote]About 10 million Africans were estimated to be taken into slavery by the European powers in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.[/quote]

No mention of the estimated 10-18m African people enslaved and taken to the middle east this last 1000 years, and who didn't have the burst in technological advancement Europe did.

[David Johnson]

I suspect in your eagerness to make your point, not for the first time, of the evil that is Islam, you have overlooked the purpose of this thread.

I explained to Essex Lad why I had made the post at the start of this thread:

"I get bored with the UKIP view about slashing foreign aid and the inherent view that Africa is just one, big basket case. "

So in response to the rather prevalent British and increasingly right wing European view (Front National etc) of "foreign aid is a waste of time, Africa is a basket case, we are just throwing good money after bad" I highlighted what enormous advantages Britain and Europe in general had got from Africa over its involvement for centuries.

[Sam Slater]

What David doesn't realise is that I was questioning the long-term advantages of slavery, given more slavery from Africa went to the middle-east and they didn't have the same cultural and industrial jolt that Europe did.

On the other hand, glad to see Arg have it handed to him. Not that he cares. He comes up with nasty stuff like this every time he feels he needs a bit of attention.

[David Johnson]

"What David doesn't realise is that I was questioning the long-term advantages of slavery"

Well, if you look at Britain, few would argue that slavery and the triangular trade that resulted, did not have a decisive impact on long term economic development.

Having said that, having slaves is not an automatic guarantee of economic power and development as part of a nation. There are other factors at play.

[bernard72]

Ebola

[frankthring]

I come to this debate rather late having been away on a short hols. So let
me just sling a few irons in the fire...

Slave irons to start; first off, to view History in hindsight centuries later,
from the pronounced perspective of the Modern World is crass and somewhat
hypocritical for my taste, David. 500 years from now slavery may be in
vogue again, who knows; it was, after all, an ordinarily accepted part of just
about all civilizations (Western European man, the ancient Egyptians, Maya
and Aztec etc etc) until along came Rousseau, the Enlightenment and all the
waffle about the "rights of man" and we are all equal etc etc.

But lets accept it as wrong. Which was the first great Western nation to fight
it ? USA ? No ! French ? No ! It was US, the Brits. Who then went on to
fight it wherever they found it in operation throughout the heyday of 19th
century imperialism ? Us again. Read your Livingstone opposing Arab slavers
in central Africa and countless other who championed the anti-slavery cause,
read your Morel attacking Belgian atrocities in the Congo. My own great-
uncle fought in several anti-slavery expeditions against the arabs who controlled
trade in liaison with the native chiefs who made vast sums from exploiting
their own people notably the slaver Mwele in East Africa. We even had a
war, our shortest, just an hour long, against Zanzibar when the Sultan
refused to stop selling slaves. I know about this too - I have in front of me
my great-uncle`s papers as he was last British Resident (political advisor)
to the Sultanate ofZanzibar.

You complain about the wealth taken from Africa - in minerals especially -
but as another commentator has written, since the native Africans had
limited means of exploiting this wealth I fail to see why the West should
not exploit the land. I would just add the major diamond and gold finds
in South Africa were on lands bought and farmed by whites, not prime
black native land. Exploitation of mineral reserves has certainly happened
but Human Greed does not recognise the colour of a man`s skin.

Almost every modern African country is corrupt and some are terribly so;
In his recent book "Blood River" the writer Tim Butcher tried to walk
across the Congo and found that its infrastructure is not only much worse
today than under Belgian rule, its even worse than 150 years ago. Despite
zillions of dollars there are hardly any roads, little electricity even in the
cities and officials meet you off your plane at Kinshasa to take all your
cash with bogus crap. You cannot blame this level of wholesale corruption
on the days of Empire which ended more than 60 years ago. I invite you,
David, to try and drive from Mombassa to Nairobi. The splendid paved
road built by the Brits (and cut through the jungle by our imperialist
ancestors who gave their lives for Africa) is no more - just vast potholes.
Then check just how much money Kenyan politicians syphon off into their
pockets from the World Bank each year.

I could go on and on...to blame the West for Africa`s health is a poor panacea
for the continent`s ills. Africans need to stand on their feet and realise
that most - but not all - their problems Today are of their own making and
while needing Western help (which should be given), they must accept more
responsibility for the mess which is Africa in 2014.

[beutelwolf]

David Johnson wrote:

> I do accept that Africa is the least developed continent. What
> I do not accept is that the term "basket case" became
> appropriate when the European empires were replaced by native
> rule 60 years ago which is your point expressed here.

So, if it were, say, 160 years ago, that would be ok then? You had enough time to fix things, now you are officially hopeless?

I think most people would give political self-rule less credit/blame for what these countries are like. [The case of South Africa is a special case though, where the removal of apartheid has a massive impact on what its society is like (and will be like).] Generally, governments can facilitate development, they can also ruin it, but they cannot really create it. That has to be a communal effort by the people.

Africa seems to be stuck in tribal rivalries that undermine communal efforts, and not just in sub-Saharan Africa, e.g. in Libya it is not any different. Of course, one can (and should) blame the European colonialists for creating nation states without national identities (and not only in Africa, Iraq springs to mind), but I do not recall any notable efforts by the Africans to rectify this since; the creation of South-Sudan is a possible exception, though I'm not sure whether it really fits that pattern.

When people are talking about Africa as a basket case, they bemoan the lack of social progress, the introduction of mobile phones aside. When I first became politically aware of Africa, in the 1970s, the news coming from there were similarly bleak. Certifiable nutcase regimes such as the ones by Idi Amin, Bokassa and Mobutu were perhaps more abundant then, but continent-wide political stability is now as precarious as ever. Progress?