3 ms·

It's a shame the West abandoned Africa to the warlords and tribal supremacists. Think of what Africans could've accomplished with consistent, basic decent gove

It's a shame the West abandoned Africa to the warlords and tribal supremacists. Think of what Africans could've accomplished with consistent, basic decent governance from the top, over the last ~50 years. Hong Kong, anyone? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. White guilt is a staggeringly destructive impulse. It makes me sad.

blacksmith_tb 11y ago
Clearly one way of looking at that is "abandoned after having extracted millions of Africans (as slaves) and significant amounts of raw materials". While plenty of guilt for the current state of affairs lies at the feet of Africans running corrupt governments and industries, most would agree that the West set the stage. That said, it's hard to know if the people who are suffering under the current conditions would or wouldn't be willing to consider outsourcing the running of things (or perhaps that's what China is offering, in fact).
- toyg 11y ago
  "Set" as in the present verb: "the West" is still very much meddling in African politics, France in particular routinely engages in direct military terms all over the continent.
  - cb18 11y ago
    France in particular routinely engages in direct military terms How much of it is of the sort described in the article, of securing safe passage for french citizens out of Cote d'Ivoire because a civil war was breaking out?
    - toyg 11y ago
      From wikipedia: "French forces returned to Côte d'Ivoire in 2011 to remove the Ivorian president. In the same year, France played a pivotal role in the 2011 military intervention in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi. The year after, France intervened in Mali during that country's civil war"...
yakshemash 11y ago
If the people choose independence, for better or worse, there's nothing that the west could have done about it. What do you suggest, that colonialists crush the independence movements to keep governing? That would fly in the face of what one could call basic decent governance. Not to mention the intention of the colonizers which very arguably was to extract value for themselves first, and then maybe help africans accomplish something somewhere down the list.
- vezycash 11y ago
  The British which colonized many West African countries did something worse than quenching the independence movement in Nigeria. From History books I've read and talks with the older guys, the British pursued a divide and conquer approach to keep the country dependent for a long time. The Western part of Nigeria had the highest rate of education (still does). The Easterners were more interested in business than in school or politics. And the Northerners had the worst education rates, procreated regardless of resources to take care of the children but were very obedient. So the British pushed for them to enter the military. And they did enmasse. Till date, the military training facilities still exist only in the northern states. The string of coups, looting and stupid policies that dragged the country down were done mainly by the Northern born heads of states e.g. Buhari, Abacha, IBB. They are interesting reads btw. "Together we stand, divided we fall" I believe is a lesson these countries need to internalize FIRST, before any meaningful progress can be achieved. And this bonding is easy to achieve. "Nothing bonds like having a common enemy." - Blair Warren. US presidents have always done a good job of providing a clear enemy. For their founding, the enemies changed at different times. From the Indians, to the black slaves, and finally to the British. Later, it was communism. The time when the USSR was the enemy resulted in a lot of innovations and development (internet, satellite launch, moon landing...) for the country.
vezycash 11y ago
>Think of what Africans could've accomplished with consistent, basic decent governance from the top, over the last ~50 What I'm about to say is a mixture of facts and pure speculations. There was a Ghananian president called Kwame Nkrumah. He wanted a unified West Africa. If you check the dates of independence of many west African countries, you'll notice they revolve around the 60s. A Judge in Ghana told me that Nkrumh was the cause. He set up schools training "revolutionaries," teaching them governance and how to fight. And this hastened their independence - Nigeria was one. His plan was a united Africa where the countries trade amongst each other. And would not be forced to accept rates dictated by the west for their produce. Unfortunately, before he could effect lasting change he was overthrown. And he ran to Guinea where he was made a co-president. (I see the CIA's hand here (IMO)) It's not like governments only know how to loot. A chief source of problem is the rapid change of policies. A new government used to mean a completely different environment and rules for businesses. So, you have one step in one direction and then the next government moves two steps in the opposite direction. Partisian thinking is just ridiculous. Another big problem is tribalism. It's so big a problem that I'm chuckling right now. A person is often elected for no other reason than the tribe the person represents. The current Nigerian president is on that seat for that very reason. According to people I've Nigerians I've talked to, there would have been a killing rampage by the Hausas if the current president didn't win.

blacksmith_tb 11y ago

Clearly one way of looking at that is "abandoned after having extracted millions of Africans (as slaves) and significant amounts of raw materials". While plenty of guilt for the current state of affairs lies at the feet of Africans running corrupt governments and industries, most would agree that the West set the stage. That said, it's hard to know if the people who are suffering under the current conditions would or wouldn't be willing to consider outsourcing the running of things (or perhaps that's what China is offering, in fact).

toyg 11y ago
"Set" as in the present verb: "the West" is still very much meddling in African politics, France in particular routinely engages in direct military terms all over the continent.
- cb18 11y ago
  France in particular routinely engages in direct military terms How much of it is of the sort described in the article, of securing safe passage for french citizens out of Cote d'Ivoire because a civil war was breaking out?
  - toyg 11y ago
    From wikipedia: "French forces returned to Côte d'Ivoire in 2011 to remove the Ivorian president. In the same year, France played a pivotal role in the 2011 military intervention in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi. The year after, France intervened in Mali during that country's civil war"...

yakshemash 11y ago

If the people choose independence, for better or worse, there's nothing that the west could have done about it. What do you suggest, that colonialists crush the independence movements to keep governing? That would fly in the face of what one could call basic decent governance. Not to mention the intention of the colonizers which very arguably was to extract value for themselves first, and then maybe help africans accomplish something somewhere down the list.

vezycash 11y ago
The British which colonized many West African countries did something worse than quenching the independence movement in Nigeria. From History books I've read and talks with the older guys, the British pursued a divide and conquer approach to keep the country dependent for a long time. The Western part of Nigeria had the highest rate of education (still does). The Easterners were more interested in business than in school or politics. And the Northerners had the worst education rates, procreated regardless of resources to take care of the children but were very obedient. So the British pushed for them to enter the military. And they did enmasse. Till date, the military training facilities still exist only in the northern states. The string of coups, looting and stupid policies that dragged the country down were done mainly by the Northern born heads of states e.g. Buhari, Abacha, IBB. They are interesting reads btw. "Together we stand, divided we fall" I believe is a lesson these countries need to internalize FIRST, before any meaningful progress can be achieved. And this bonding is easy to achieve. "Nothing bonds like having a common enemy." - Blair Warren. US presidents have always done a good job of providing a clear enemy. For their founding, the enemies changed at different times. From the Indians, to the black slaves, and finally to the British. Later, it was communism. The time when the USSR was the enemy resulted in a lot of innovations and development (internet, satellite launch, moon landing...) for the country.

vezycash 11y ago

>Think of what Africans could've accomplished with consistent, basic decent governance from the top, over the last ~50 What I'm about to say is a mixture of facts and pure speculations. There was a Ghananian president called Kwame Nkrumah. He wanted a unified West Africa. If you check the dates of independence of many west African countries, you'll notice they revolve around the 60s. A Judge in Ghana told me that Nkrumh was the cause. He set up schools training "revolutionaries," teaching them governance and how to fight. And this hastened their independence - Nigeria was one. His plan was a united Africa where the countries trade amongst each other. And would not be forced to accept rates dictated by the west for their produce. Unfortunately, before he could effect lasting change he was overthrown. And he ran to Guinea where he was made a co-president. (I see the CIA's hand here (IMO)) It's not like governments only know how to loot. A chief source of problem is the rapid change of policies. A new government used to mean a completely different environment and rules for businesses. So, you have one step in one direction and then the next government moves two steps in the opposite direction. Partisian thinking is just ridiculous. Another big problem is tribalism. It's so big a problem that I'm chuckling right now. A person is often elected for no other reason than the tribe the person represents. The current Nigerian president is on that seat for that very reason. According to people I've Nigerians I've talked to, there would have been a killing rampage by the Hausas if the current president didn't win.