egafd.com

With apologies to Monty Python. Knowledge is power!!!!!!!!

Yeah well before the Europeans came along, the Africans were little better than savages.

No, they weren't. Africa's economic and social development before 1500 may arguably have been ahead of Europe's. It was gold from the great empires of West Africa, Ghana, Mali and Songhay that provided the means for the economic take-off of Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries and aroused the interest of Europeans in western Africa.

Well okay, apart from gold, and their economic and social development, what did the Africans do for us?

About 10 million Africans were estimated to be taken into slavery by the European powers in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Profits from slave trading and from sugar, coffee, cotton and tobacco are only a small part of the story. What mattered was how the pull and push from these industries transformed western Europe's economies. English banking, insurance, shipbuilding, wool and cotton manufacture, copper and iron smelting, and the cities of Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, multiplied in response to the direct and indirect stimulus of the slave plantations.

Well okay, apart from the gold and the millions of slaves and the sugar, coffee, cotton, tobacco, what did the Africans ever do for us?

Africa was a huge source of mineral wealth which was plundered by the European nations such as the UK. Africa not only underpinned Europe's earlier development. Its palm oil, petroleum, copper, chromium, platinum and in particular gold were and are crucial to the later world economy.

Well okay, apart from the gold and the millions of slaves and the sugar, coffee, cotton, tobacco, palm oil, petroleum, copper, chromium, platinum what did the Africans ever do for us? They were shite at governing themselves though and really corrupt. They needed us kind, fatherly British people to help them out.

Idi Amin came to power in Uganda through British covert action, and Nigeria's generals were supported and manipulated from 1960 onwards in support of Britain's oil interests. And it is interesting to see how many British governments supported Ian Smith's Rhodesia and South African apartheid - and now so concerned about human rights in Zimbabwe.

Well okay, apart from the gold and the millions of slaves and the sugar, coffee, cotton, tobacco, palm oil, petroleum, copper, chromium, platinum, the buggering up of their countries that the UK got involved in, what did the Africans ever do for us?

Over a million African troops fought on the British side in World War II.

Well apart from the ...........and on and on.

nice hair shirt, where can I get one?

Hairshirt? No.

Providing much needed balance? Yes.

A serious question, what do you hope to achieve by postings like this one?

Do you wish to make people think? Educate them? Or is it for your own satisfaction?

MTM's response is probably typical of forumites.

Britain, and the other colonial powers, certainly looted the resources from Africa and from other places in the world. I've always thought however that a country is basically its land and everything else comes as a result of policy and innovation. Could the primitive African people, and I don't mean that in a rude way, have exploited and exported their minerals and got rich as a result? Possibly not.

Baron rocks can be turned into advanced western economies by, as I said, policy and innovation. Look what we did to Australia and New Zealand. Some dude in London said: "hey chaps, how about exporting thousands and thousands of sheep to our two main colonies on the other side of the world? It will take 8 months for them to get there in the holds of the ships, but once there we can build two countries by having introduced these sheep. Meat and wool production - that's the way to go". They were bred at a rapid rate whilst there too. The number of sheep in those two countries vastly outnumber the human populations today.

So I don't think a country ascends or retracts due to what it has there already, policy and innovation (to say it again) is what determines these things. Africa would be just as primitive now if the Europeans, us mainly, hadn't colonised the place. The worst legacy of our imperial past was the introduction of 'the nation state'. Without the Europeans carving up Africa and putting borders all over the place, it would be one large 'country' now with many tribes living in different bits of it. Putting borders all over the place caused, and still causes, massive problems. Look at Nigeria (I've been there) it was three regions that were forced to become one by Britain. Without that there would not have been the civil war there in 1967 (seven years after independence) which caused millions of deaths, and the problems along the perimeters where one province meets another would not involve the hostility and death that it sometimes does. Imposing the nation state on the Africans is the worst thing we and others in Europe did - far, far worse than looting minerals from these places.

Should be "What has Africa done ever done for us?". Africa has resources a plenty. If it was down to Africans most if not all of it would sill be untapped.

Err, you need to dig out your primary schoolbooks and read about the tomb of Tutankhamun.

What do you expect to achieve from any of your posts, Essex Lad?

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

No harm in providing a bit of historical perspective. As to "make people think", "educate them", pissing in the wind with some of the people who post on here.

David Johnson wrote:

> the inherent view that Africa is just one, big basket case.


it's the inherent view because it's true for the most part, and has been for the past 60 years or more.

also those great empires of West Africa that you mention with all their "economic and social development" (built largely on slavery and conquest as well by the way) are long gone.

"it's the inherent view because it's true for the most part, and has been for the past 60 years or more. "

That is your view. I don't share it. And my point in taking a historical perspective is to show how the profit/loss account for European involvement in Africa is overwhelmingly on the profit side for the Europeans.

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

"also those great empires of West Africa that you mention with all their "economic and social development" (built largely on slavery and conquest as well by the way) are long gone."

Again you miss the point. 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. 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.
"