3 ms·

Ask HN: Would Africa be better off if colonizers had stayed longer?

Sensitive topic I know, but this is the inspiration for the question... The Romans invaded and colonized much of Europe during their conquests, and over centuries their culture rubbed off on the local people, building a foundation for them that helped them transition from tribalism to more advanced forms of political and social organization once the Romans left. The development of Europe was kick-started by the Romans and their colonization of its lands. Similarly, if the European powers had been tolerated and allowed to rule in Africa for longer than they actually did, perhaps their institutions and infrastructure would have served as scaffolding for the local people to use to build better functioning societies in the future?

Piskvorrr 9y ago
Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa - technically decolonised since 1961, actually continued via apartheid until 1990. Also - the Romans never actually left (gross simplification ahead): the empire has split into various smaller entities, all of them considering themselves heirs of the empire. This was mostly the case of "locals becoming Romans," far more than "Romans ruling over locals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...
- barcelardigit 9y ago
  What would you conclude from that? South Africa has a strong economy but much of the population still lives in poverty. But is that poverty rate higher than in nations with less history of European presence?
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    I would conclude that "staying longer" strongly correlates with "don't you dare touch our nice institutions and infrastructure; that's our scaffolding, not yours." In other words, no, I don't think you can reduce decolonisation to "but-the-railways!", which you seem to be saying. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-...
- nathan_long 9y ago
  Apartheid seems to highlight a big difference here. Romans and Gauls could fuse into a single local culture, but Europeans were determined to keep Africans under their thumbs. It's hard to imagine the locals being "better off" for more generations of oppression.
  - akhatri_aus 9y ago
    Actually in the "winds of change" speech, this was one thing the Europeans did not like - Harold Macmillan seeked equality much to the dismay of the government in South Africa - later that year they also turned to a republic. Also in the case of Rhodesia Ian Smith it was considered had committed treason with his UDI against the wishes in Whitehall.
JPLeRouzic 9y ago
This assumes the African societies were of lower standard than European societies of mid XIXth century. I think it was not the case, most European countries were simply horribly brutal, and it did not stop in the XXth century even after independence. Someone who was in CDR after the independence told me that Belgians used the local workforce to build a 65km long montainous road to the west of Kivu. There were 2000 dead workers. That is what African colonialism and post colonialism really is. (edited: Replaced east by west)

Piskvorrr 9y ago

Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa - technically decolonised since 1961, actually continued via apartheid until 1990. Also - the Romans never actually left (gross simplification ahead): the empire has split into various smaller entities, all of them considering themselves heirs of the empire. This was mostly the case of "locals becoming Romans," far more than "Romans ruling over locals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...

barcelardigit 9y ago
What would you conclude from that? South Africa has a strong economy but much of the population still lives in poverty. But is that poverty rate higher than in nations with less history of European presence?
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  I would conclude that "staying longer" strongly correlates with "don't you dare touch our nice institutions and infrastructure; that's our scaffolding, not yours." In other words, no, I don't think you can reduce decolonisation to "but-the-railways!", which you seem to be saying. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-...
nathan_long 9y ago
Apartheid seems to highlight a big difference here. Romans and Gauls could fuse into a single local culture, but Europeans were determined to keep Africans under their thumbs. It's hard to imagine the locals being "better off" for more generations of oppression.
- akhatri_aus 9y ago
  Actually in the "winds of change" speech, this was one thing the Europeans did not like - Harold Macmillan seeked equality much to the dismay of the government in South Africa - later that year they also turned to a republic. Also in the case of Rhodesia Ian Smith it was considered had committed treason with his UDI against the wishes in Whitehall.

JPLeRouzic 9y ago

This assumes the African societies were of lower standard than European societies of mid XIXth century. I think it was not the case, most European countries were simply horribly brutal, and it did not stop in the XXth century even after independence. Someone who was in CDR after the independence told me that Belgians used the local workforce to build a 65km long montainous road to the west of Kivu. There were 2000 dead workers. That is what African colonialism and post colonialism really is. (edited: Replaced east by west)