5 ms·

Colonialism destroyed all structure that was before in Africa. They had prosperous kingdoms that was destroyed. Then the colonialists left very suddenly and the

by 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.

by Ma8ee 13y ago

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.