5 ms·

Anyone care for a little tdlr; ?

Spooky23 13y ago
Colonialism. The British created the place to exploit copper mines, but the Belgians were able to get control of the copper.
- sgt 13y ago
  Zambia wouldn't necessarily be a better place if colonialism never happened.
  - Ma8ee 13y ago
    Colonialism destroyed all structure that was before in Africa. They had prosperous kingdoms that was destroyed. Then the colonialists left very suddenly and there were only chaos left. It's not more than about 50 years since Africa was left to fend for itself after the European powers left. Considering that it took hundreds of years with more wars than anyone care to count before Europe became the peaceful and prosperous place it is today I don't think Africa is doing that badly.
    - newnewnew 13y ago
      Their "prosperous kingdoms" didn't have written language or the wheel. There wasn't that much pre-existing structure to destroy.
      - Ma8ee 13y ago
        > There wasn't that much pre-existing structure to destroy. That is a myth that the colonizers were very happy to bolster, for obvious reasons.
        oblio 13y ago
        That "wheel" remark was quite poignant, though :)
        Ma8ee 13y ago
        Like how the Inca or the Maya never were any real civilizations because they didn't use wheels?
        oblio 13y ago
        Well, they were real civilizations, bu I doubt anyone would dare to equate their achievements and influence with the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese or Egyptians. Especially for the Incas, it's hard for me to be impressed by their achievements around the year 1400 AD considering what the Egyptians already had achieved by the year 2000BC...
        Ma8ee 13y ago
        The point is that they were organized societies, not the utter chaos that was left behind when the European powers left Africa.
        smtddr 13y ago
        Don't even bother with the user "newnewnew". Look through a few pages of his comment history. He makes condescending remarks about liberals & keeps trying to prove Africa(and African-americans) are the cause of their own problems. And if you read a couple of pages of his comment history, it's not clear if he sees women as equal to men and/or doesn't understand how strong gender-discrimination is. But don't take my word for it. Seriously, look at his comment history. Here's just one, of many examples, of his mind set: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6360762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6360762
        hash9 13y ago
        If you can't counter the argument attack the person. "Don't even bother with the user "newnewnew"" - Ignore and ostracise those with opposing views. How open minded of you.
      - rdtsc 13y ago
        It was a trade-off but those kingdoms weren't the ones making the choice. It was made for them by the occupiers. They had perhaps some authority structures, some nation and ethnicity based borders, perhaps less civil war type conflicts. At least that was taken away. Whether it would have been better for British and others to stay away is hard to say.
      - catmanjan 13y ago
        I used to think the lack of the wheel was a valid argument against the prosperity of Africa, but then I saw how wheels performed in such arid conditions. The soil is so volatile that wheels end up being dragged in the dirt, hence camels. It would have been cool if they had invented primitive AT STs though!
    - spindritf 13y ago
      Eastern Europe has been changing hands between various empires for the last 300 years and was razed at least twice in the last century alone. That was followed by Soviet occupation and communism it entailed. Poland lost 17% of its population in WWII. Local elites and leaders who didn't end in mass graves or concentration camps during the war, were imprisoned or murdered by post-war collaborators. The Red Army left in '93 and 20 years later it's a perfectly fine place to live. I don't buy colonialism as the explanation.
      - Ma8ee 13y ago
        The Soviet occupation or the colonization in itself wasn't that made the mess. Poland had the Soviet occupiers and Africa had various European powers organizing the countries. None of the places was good places to live during the occupation (even though I think most people very much prefer Brezhnev and maybe even Stalin to King Leopold of Belgium), but there was at least some kind of organized society. The difference between the colonial powers leaving Africa and the Soviet Union leaving Eastern Europe was that the Soviet Union didn't take with them everyone that worked in any kind of administration and most people who could read when they left. In Poland the guys that was in charge of the central mail administration didn't flee the country. The Department of Transportation didn't burn all their archives and jumped on the first ship out of the country. That was what happened in most of Africa. Almost all the people who had been in charge and had any knowledge fled. That didn't happen in Eastern Europe in nearly the same degree.
        adamc 13y ago
        But wasn't that the result of the transition _from_ colonialism rather than _of_ colonialism?
        Ma8ee 13y ago
        In my previous comment I mentioned that the colonizers first destroyed the existing structures, so if the Europeans first hadn't colonized the continent, then there couldn't have existed any bad transition _from_ colonialism either. In other words, the first sin was to colonize the continent in the first place, destroy existing civil structures, and exploit the land and the population as they did. The second sin was to very abruptly abandon them and leave them without even the structures that had replace the original ones. In current Iraq and Afghanistan the US at least try to make sure that there is some kind of stable regime before they leave. Of course it might have been better to not invade in the first place, but since they did, it is their responsibility to try to make sure that some kind of civilian society have a chance when they leave.
  - dodyg 13y ago
    Say that to the American Indians or Australian Aborigines (just a few example)
curtis 13y ago
It's a little long for a TLDR, but: > The only thing I’m able to conclude after my trip here is that it’s incredibly difficult for a poor country to go about getting un-poor. Just when you think you’ve got the right narrative, another one comes bursting out of the footnotes. It’s the informality. No, it’s the taxes. No, it’s the mining companies. No, it’s the regulators. > And that’s what makes fixing it so difficult. Does Zambia need better schools? Debt relief? Microfinance? Nicer mining companies? Better laws? Stronger enforcement? Yes. All of them. And all at the same time. > You can’t fix the land issues without tackling the corruption. You can’t fix the corruption without tackling the politics. You can’t fix the politics without addressing the culture. Thomas’ family told him his nephews didn’t need to be in school. From their perspective, that’s not totally irrational. In a country with so few formal jobs and so much competition for getting them, I can see how spending hundreds of hours, thousands of kwachas, on education would seem superfluous. Thomas’ daughter wants to become a lawyer. You could almost forgive Thomas if he told her that the bar exam failure rate is more than 90 percent, so what’s the use?
- curtis 13y ago
  Shortly thereafter, the author also writes: > A week after I leave Lusaka, I meet a Zambian expat in Zimbabwe. She left Lusaka four years ago, and she says every time she returns, there are more cars, more roads, more restaurants, bars, gyms, decent cappuccinos. > I tell her that in Lusaka I saw construction cranes on the horizon in every direction. > “It’s all malls,” she says. “Zambians love to go to the goddamn mall.” > That’s not the only reason for optimism. Inflation is down to seven percent from 20 percent last decade. International investors pledged $750 million last year to build infrastructure. The new draft of the constitution limits presidential powers and confronts the MP-hopping problem. Fundamentally, Zambia is a stable country sitting on top of an El Dorado of fertile land and lucrative minerals. In the long run, things will probably get better.
cpleppert 13y ago
I've been to Zambia and the short answer is basically they have 1) government corruption 2) and don't have anything else besides copper. So even though you have a participatory political system the copper companies get insanely good deals and nothing is spent on education for example. Besides Botswana they are actually doing really well for a sub-saharan African country. The politics have been a mess for a long time, basically two parties have dominated politics for the past forty years(one after the other) so you had a quasi single party state but a reasonable rule of law to keep things from getting out of hand and a fair electoral system for the past twenty years or so. I'm not sure I buy the claim that the government doesn't do anything. Basically, it was explained to me that no one wants to upset the factions with political influence. Paradoxically, Botswana has a much more closed political system yet doesn't seem to have the problems with corruption Zambia has.
- VLM 13y ago
  "basically two parties have dominated politics for the past forty years(one after the other) so you had a quasi single party state" AKA the USA model. If you swap/replace "auto companies" with "copper" its basically Detroit with a slightly healthier economy and political system.
  - jpatokal 13y ago
    Not quite: the US auto industry is around 5% of US GDP, tops. Depending on how you count, copper is around 80-95% of the Zambian economy.
    - polymatter 13y ago
      VLM compared it to the situation in Detroit not the US. Thus the relevant statistic would be the share of auto industry to Detroit's GDP (which my google-fu failed to find)

Colonialism. The British created the place to exploit copper mines, but the Belgians were able to get control of the copper.

sgt 13y ago
Zambia wouldn't necessarily be a better place if colonialism never happened.
- Ma8ee 13y ago
  Colonialism destroyed all structure that was before in Africa. They had prosperous kingdoms that was destroyed. Then the colonialists left very suddenly and there were only chaos left. It's not more than about 50 years since Africa was left to fend for itself after the European powers left. Considering that it took hundreds of years with more wars than anyone care to count before Europe became the peaceful and prosperous place it is today I don't think Africa is doing that badly.
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    Their "prosperous kingdoms" didn't have written language or the wheel. There wasn't that much pre-existing structure to destroy.
    - Ma8ee 13y ago
      > There wasn't that much pre-existing structure to destroy. That is a myth that the colonizers were very happy to bolster, for obvious reasons.
      - oblio 13y ago
        That "wheel" remark was quite poignant, though :)
        Ma8ee 13y ago
        Like how the Inca or the Maya never were any real civilizations because they didn't use wheels?
        oblio 13y ago
        Well, they were real civilizations, bu I doubt anyone would dare to equate their achievements and influence with the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese or Egyptians. Especially for the Incas, it's hard for me to be impressed by their achievements around the year 1400 AD considering what the Egyptians already had achieved by the year 2000BC...
        Ma8ee 13y ago
        The point is that they were organized societies, not the utter chaos that was left behind when the European powers left Africa.
      - smtddr 13y ago
        Don't even bother with the user "newnewnew". Look through a few pages of his comment history. He makes condescending remarks about liberals & keeps trying to prove Africa(and African-americans) are the cause of their own problems. And if you read a couple of pages of his comment history, it's not clear if he sees women as equal to men and/or doesn't understand how strong gender-discrimination is. But don't take my word for it. Seriously, look at his comment history. Here's just one, of many examples, of his mind set: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6360762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6360762
        hash9 13y ago
        If you can't counter the argument attack the person. "Don't even bother with the user "newnewnew"" - Ignore and ostracise those with opposing views. How open minded of you.
    - rdtsc 13y ago
      It was a trade-off but those kingdoms weren't the ones making the choice. It was made for them by the occupiers. They had perhaps some authority structures, some nation and ethnicity based borders, perhaps less civil war type conflicts. At least that was taken away. Whether it would have been better for British and others to stay away is hard to say.
    - catmanjan 13y ago
      I used to think the lack of the wheel was a valid argument against the prosperity of Africa, but then I saw how wheels performed in such arid conditions. The soil is so volatile that wheels end up being dragged in the dirt, hence camels. It would have been cool if they had invented primitive AT STs though!
  - spindritf 13y ago
    Eastern Europe has been changing hands between various empires for the last 300 years and was razed at least twice in the last century alone. That was followed by Soviet occupation and communism it entailed. Poland lost 17% of its population in WWII. Local elites and leaders who didn't end in mass graves or concentration camps during the war, were imprisoned or murdered by post-war collaborators. The Red Army left in '93 and 20 years later it's a perfectly fine place to live. I don't buy colonialism as the explanation.
    - Ma8ee 13y ago
      The Soviet occupation or the colonization in itself wasn't that made the mess. Poland had the Soviet occupiers and Africa had various European powers organizing the countries. None of the places was good places to live during the occupation (even though I think most people very much prefer Brezhnev and maybe even Stalin to King Leopold of Belgium), but there was at least some kind of organized society. The difference between the colonial powers leaving Africa and the Soviet Union leaving Eastern Europe was that the Soviet Union didn't take with them everyone that worked in any kind of administration and most people who could read when they left. In Poland the guys that was in charge of the central mail administration didn't flee the country. The Department of Transportation didn't burn all their archives and jumped on the first ship out of the country. That was what happened in most of Africa. Almost all the people who had been in charge and had any knowledge fled. That didn't happen in Eastern Europe in nearly the same degree.
      - adamc 13y ago
        But wasn't that the result of the transition _from_ colonialism rather than _of_ colonialism?
        Ma8ee 13y ago
        In my previous comment I mentioned that the colonizers first destroyed the existing structures, so if the Europeans first hadn't colonized the continent, then there couldn't have existed any bad transition _from_ colonialism either. In other words, the first sin was to colonize the continent in the first place, destroy existing civil structures, and exploit the land and the population as they did. The second sin was to very abruptly abandon them and leave them without even the structures that had replace the original ones. In current Iraq and Afghanistan the US at least try to make sure that there is some kind of stable regime before they leave. Of course it might have been better to not invade in the first place, but since they did, it is their responsibility to try to make sure that some kind of civilian society have a chance when they leave.
- dodyg 13y ago
  Say that to the American Indians or Australian Aborigines (just a few example)

curtis 13y ago

It's a little long for a TLDR, but: > The only thing I’m able to conclude after my trip here is that it’s incredibly difficult for a poor country to go about getting un-poor. Just when you think you’ve got the right narrative, another one comes bursting out of the footnotes. It’s the informality. No, it’s the taxes. No, it’s the mining companies. No, it’s the regulators. > And that’s what makes fixing it so difficult. Does Zambia need better schools? Debt relief? Microfinance? Nicer mining companies? Better laws? Stronger enforcement? Yes. All of them. And all at the same time. > You can’t fix the land issues without tackling the corruption. You can’t fix the corruption without tackling the politics. You can’t fix the politics without addressing the culture. Thomas’ family told him his nephews didn’t need to be in school. From their perspective, that’s not totally irrational. In a country with so few formal jobs and so much competition for getting them, I can see how spending hundreds of hours, thousands of kwachas, on education would seem superfluous. Thomas’ daughter wants to become a lawyer. You could almost forgive Thomas if he told her that the bar exam failure rate is more than 90 percent, so what’s the use?

curtis 13y ago
Shortly thereafter, the author also writes: > A week after I leave Lusaka, I meet a Zambian expat in Zimbabwe. She left Lusaka four years ago, and she says every time she returns, there are more cars, more roads, more restaurants, bars, gyms, decent cappuccinos. > I tell her that in Lusaka I saw construction cranes on the horizon in every direction. > “It’s all malls,” she says. “Zambians love to go to the goddamn mall.” > That’s not the only reason for optimism. Inflation is down to seven percent from 20 percent last decade. International investors pledged $750 million last year to build infrastructure. The new draft of the constitution limits presidential powers and confronts the MP-hopping problem. Fundamentally, Zambia is a stable country sitting on top of an El Dorado of fertile land and lucrative minerals. In the long run, things will probably get better.

cpleppert 13y ago

I've been to Zambia and the short answer is basically they have 1) government corruption 2) and don't have anything else besides copper. So even though you have a participatory political system the copper companies get insanely good deals and nothing is spent on education for example. Besides Botswana they are actually doing really well for a sub-saharan African country. The politics have been a mess for a long time, basically two parties have dominated politics for the past forty years(one after the other) so you had a quasi single party state but a reasonable rule of law to keep things from getting out of hand and a fair electoral system for the past twenty years or so. I'm not sure I buy the claim that the government doesn't do anything. Basically, it was explained to me that no one wants to upset the factions with political influence. Paradoxically, Botswana has a much more closed political system yet doesn't seem to have the problems with corruption Zambia has.

VLM 13y ago
"basically two parties have dominated politics for the past forty years(one after the other) so you had a quasi single party state" AKA the USA model. If you swap/replace "auto companies" with "copper" its basically Detroit with a slightly healthier economy and political system.
- jpatokal 13y ago
  Not quite: the US auto industry is around 5% of US GDP, tops. Depending on how you count, copper is around 80-95% of the Zambian economy.
  - polymatter 13y ago
    VLM compared it to the situation in Detroit not the US. Thus the relevant statistic would be the share of auto industry to Detroit's GDP (which my google-fu failed to find)