egafd.com

> Interesting that you select "60 years or more" which coincides
> with African independence.

That's because whatever the rights and wrongs of the European empires (ours, the French, belgians etc), ever since independence the governments of these newly independent countries have (for the most part) utterly failed their people and the whole continent remains mired in corruption, povery and warfare as a result, with no end in sight.


the simplistic left-wing view is just to blame all that on the "evil legacy" of the empire, but after 50 - 60 years that excuse is starting to wear a bit thin now. it is largely down to the inability of these countries and their people to get their shit together, pull together and sort things out.


> First you are correct in the use of
> slavery but I have seen no evidence that it was on the scale of
> the European use of slavery in Africa.

slavery has been endemic throughout Africa since the dawn of history and what's more it remains so today (albeit perhaps on a smaller scale). It was also compounded by Muslim slavers sourcing slaves in West Africa and trafficking them across the Sahara in large numbers (sorry, don't have the stats to hand) for centuries. Zanzibar as I'm sure you're aware was a major centre of the African slave trade to the Middle East


> Secondly a historical
> perspective shows that the common view that Africa was filled
> entirely with ignorant savages before Europe got involved is
> not backed up by the facts. If you look at the culture of
> North and West Africa you will find areas which were superior
> to European areas in terms of economic and cultural
> development.


That may be true but it doesn't alter the fact that Africa is (mostly) a basket case now. And the here and now is what matters to most people when they're being asked to put their hands in their pockets and give money.

"That's because whatever the rights and wrongs of the European empires (ours, the French, belgians etc), ever since independence the governments of these newly independent countries have (for the most part) utterly failed their people"

Of course, you could state the same about the US and its treatment of the unemployed, many still without healthcare. And you could say the same about Russia in terms of the vast disparity between rich and poor and the corruption and abrogation of justice in that country. And in a country like the UK which has the 6th or 7th biggest economy in the world where so many trot along to food banks, we have nothing to crow about. And the UK has been independent for nigh on a 1000 years.

But no one calls those countries "basket cases" when you could argue that they have far, far less excuses than African countries for letting their people down.

"the simplistic left-wing view is just to blame all that on the "evil legacy" of the empire,"

Well, I am not doing that. I would be the last to argue that modern African governments are blameless.

"slavery has been endemic throughout Africa since the dawn of history and what's more it remains so today (albeit perhaps on a smaller scale). "

"Perhaps"? There is no comparison between slavery now and the millions and millions that were transported across the world for profit by the European countries.

David Johnson wrote:

> Of course, you could state the same about the US and its
> treatment of the unemployed, many still without healthcare.
> And you could say the same about Russia in terms of the vast
> disparity between rich and poor and the corruption and
> abrogation of justice in that country. And in a country like
> the UK which has the 6th or 7th biggest economy in the world
> where so many trot along to food banks, we have nothing to crow
> about. And the UK has been independent for nigh on a 1000
> years.

you're comparing apples & oranges david. For all our many faults, in comparison to africa we still have largely functioning and prosperous economies and for the most part civilised societies. Wars in and between sovereign states in Europe are thankfully a rarity since 1945, and military coups pretty much non-existent (Greece in 1967 was the last one I think). Whereas in Africa they're the norm in many places, along with bloodthirsty militias constantly at each others throats as they rape and pillage their way across the countryside in endless civil wars.

We also have a largely decent standard of living. Yes we have poverty and inequality in the West, but what they have in Africa is on a whole different level. Your average african villager would probably consider our worst inner city slums to be the lap of luxury (which is probably why so many of them want to come here).


> There is no comparison between slavery now and the
> millions and millions that were transported across the world
> for profit by the European countries.

Not what I was comparing, if anything that bit about modern african slavery was just an afterthought. read what I wrote there again. My point was that whereas the Europeans exploited Africa for slaves over a period of - what - 300 years or thereabouts, the Africans were busy selling each other as slaves for a lot longer before the Europeans arrived and are still doing it now. Not forgetting the massive Arab slave trade that went on for centuries in sub-saharan Africa as well

"you're comparing apples & oranges david. For all our many faults, in comparison to africa we still have largely functioning and prosperous economies and for the most part civilised societies.

I'm not comparing them. What I am saying is if you consider their history e.g. UK independent for a 1,000 years, the US independent for centuries and their economic positions in the world, we have nothing to feel smug about. And in addition, if you look at say India and the proportion of its population without running water and sewage systems, no one seems to describe India as a basket case. Why is that?

"Wars in and between sovereign states in Europe are thankfully a rarity since 1945"

Ukraine is a sovereign state and yet Russia has sent tanks and troops into there. What about the wars in Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia etc etc and the acts of genocide committed during them?

What about the umpteen wars/military interventions with countries outside Europe that the UK has been involved in, in the last 25 years?

I also dispute your reference to independence as if it was when things really started to go wrong for African countries. There were plenty of examples of famine and government mismanagement under the European empires.

It's too easy to come out with the old, tired clich?s like Africa is a "basket case". The position is far, far more complex than glib remarks suggest.

David Johnson wrote:


> Ukraine is a sovereign state and yet Russia has sent tanks and
> troops into there. What about the wars in Serbia, Kosovo,
> Croatia etc etc and the acts of genocide committed during them?

Which is exactly why I said they are "a rarity". I didn't say that there hadn't been any. We had the Balkans mess in the 90s and Ukraine now. that's been pretty much it in Europe since the end of WW2


> What about the umpteen wars/military interventions with
> countries outside Europe that the UK has been involved in, in
> the last 25 years?

their relevance to this discussion being what exactly?


> It's too easy to come out with the old, tired clich?s like
> Africa is a "basket case". The position is far, far more
> complex than glib remarks suggest.

if you don't agree that modern sub-saharan Africa is largely a "basket case", why not explain why it isn't?

"Which is exactly why I said they are "a rarity". I didn't say that there hadn't been any. We had the Balkans mess in the 90s and Ukraine now. that's been pretty much it in Europe since the end of WW2"

"their relevance to this discussion being what exactly?"

I would have thought that was clear. One of the reasons you give for Africa being a "basket case" is the number of wars that have occurred in Africa.

I see absolutely no reason why you should differentiate between wars involving European states and non-European states.

For example, the UK has been at war non-stop for the last 14 years with hundreds of thousands killed. Countries like the US have been at war or carrying out military interventions more often than not over the last 60 years. And yet no-one claims that they are "basket cases".

"if you don't agree that modern sub-saharan Africa is largely a "basket case", why not explain why it isn't?"

I thought we were talking about Africa, not a subset of Africa. As for explaining why it isn't, I have given you many reasons in this thread where the "Africa is a basket case" that started with the end of the European empires in Africa is a tired out clich?.

And there are many reasons why "basket case" could be used equally to describe countries like India in terms of how the government treats the vast majority of its population in terms of spreading the wealth of the country and with its various uprisings and religious massacres etc. etc.

I think we should just agree to disagree at this point to avoid going round in circles.

David Johnson wrote:

> I would have thought that was clear. One of the reasons you
> give for Africa being a "basket case" is the number of wars
> that have occurred in Africa.
>
> I see absolutely no reason why you should differentiate between
> wars involving European states and non-European states.


most (but not all) of Africa's conflicts since independence have been internal civil wars, some of which have lasted for decades. it stands to reason that wars of this kind are going to have a much more direct and devastating impact on the economies, societies, infrastructures and populations of the countries concerned than, say, the UK's involvement in Afghanistan had on society here in terms of disruption, destruction, civilian casualties and opportunities for development. In Europe there have only been a couple of comparable cases in the past almost 70 years (the Balkan quagmire & Ukraine).


> I have given you many reasons
> in this thread where the "Africa is a basket case" that started
> with the end of the European empires in Africa is a tired out
> clich?.

with respect David you've talked about the slave trade, African empires of old, its mineral wealth etc. You've said why it hasn't always been a basket case in the past. But you haven't said why it isn't one now. Or maybe you agree that it is? Or that parts of it are?


> And there are many reasons why "basket case" could be used
> equally to describe countries like India in terms of how the
> government treats the vast majority of its population in terms
> of spreading the wealth of the country and with its various
> uprisings and religious massacres etc. etc.

that's a very fair point but I thought that this thread was about Africa?


> I think we should just agree to disagree at this point to avoid
> going round in circles.

I have a feeling we might have to.

To make it completely clear, my problem is with the term "basket case". I find it a lazy clich?. In the same way that UKIP blaming all our ills on the EU is a lazy clich?.

Reality is a lot more complex.

Yes, there have been many wars in Africa post-independence. Yes there have been many famines. Yes, there have been and are corrupt African governments.

But no-one uses the term "basket case" to describe India. No-one uses the term to describe the USA even though it has been at war with other countries more often than not in the last 60 years or so. And there were many famines and uprisings in African countries while they were part of European empires and no-one describes them as "basket cases" then.

Apparently they only become "basket cases" when the European empires crumble and they become independent.

Like I said it is a lazy clich?. This is my last post to you on the subject.

Look at for example, Zambia, Ghana, Tanzania, South Africa, Mauritius, Cameroon.

They don't fit into your tired clich? of civil war ridden, frequently at woar with their neighbours, incredibly corrupt, dependent on famine aid etc etc.

Like I said you can't summarise a continent in a pat, tired out phrase. Reality is not so simplistic

Ah yes Serth Effreeka, rape and murder capital of the planet....