4 ms·

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

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
I highly recommend this book The Fate of Africa http://www.amazon.com/The-Fate-Africa-Continent-Independence/dp/1610390717 http://www.amazon.com/The-Fate-Africa-Continent-Independence...
rdtsc 13y ago
> That was followed by Soviet occupation and communism it entailed. It could be a matter of degree. It might sound radical but what if I told you that Soviet occupation wasn't as brutal as British occupation. Soviets didn't tolerate political dissent. But they did give everyone an apartment, free (including higher) education, healthcare. Did the British empire have those programs. Free healthcare, education, and minimum living space? I kind of doubt it.
- refurb 13y ago
  So gave them all the base necessities, yet took away any hope of actually having a say in how they live their lives. I would say the Soviets were far more brutal. Being hungry or homeless is one thing, not even the master of your own lofe is another.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    I would have agreed with you some years back. But now I am not sure anymore. Promises of freedom and democracy and having a say are well good, but they are rather abstract when someone is about to go bankrupt because they found out they have cancer and they have been laid off. Or they are hungry. I think over and over there are examples (China, ex Soviet Union, various other dictatorships) where people would accept a warm bed, safety, being able to work, get healthcare with sever restrictions to speech and travel vs having the freedom for speech, travel, but not having the minimum basic necessities. There aren't too many recent cases were people oppressed politically were able to win the majority and overthrow the government and turn it into a democracy when there is otherwise enough stability economic, social to start with. Americans I feel (and I would know, I live here too now) have swallowed quite a bit of propaganda and they will tell you long stories about how Democracy is just the best, capitalism is the best etc etc. I used to think that too, but I am not so sure anymore. Maybe that is why a lot of wars are sold to the American people "we are bringing Democracy" and "Freedom". That has a good local appeal. Internationally maybe others read that in the same category as North Korea telling its people they live on Paradise on Earth.
    - 13y ago
randomafrican 13y ago
Depens on what you think about when you think about colonialism. If you're thinking about the period when Africa was ruled by European power, I'd say it didnt help (mostly because of the deeply authoritarian aspect of that rule) but there wasnt much to destroy at that point. Then there is the period Right before which has some deeper effect on trust, corruption, institutions, stability, trade, population movements: the transatlantic slave trade. Edit: and the eastern one too.

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

I highly recommend this book The Fate of Africa http://www.amazon.com/The-Fate-Africa-Continent-Independence/dp/1610390717 http://www.amazon.com/The-Fate-Africa-Continent-Independence...

rdtsc 13y ago

> That was followed by Soviet occupation and communism it entailed. It could be a matter of degree. It might sound radical but what if I told you that Soviet occupation wasn't as brutal as British occupation. Soviets didn't tolerate political dissent. But they did give everyone an apartment, free (including higher) education, healthcare. Did the British empire have those programs. Free healthcare, education, and minimum living space? I kind of doubt it.

refurb 13y ago
So gave them all the base necessities, yet took away any hope of actually having a say in how they live their lives. I would say the Soviets were far more brutal. Being hungry or homeless is one thing, not even the master of your own lofe is another.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  I would have agreed with you some years back. But now I am not sure anymore. Promises of freedom and democracy and having a say are well good, but they are rather abstract when someone is about to go bankrupt because they found out they have cancer and they have been laid off. Or they are hungry. I think over and over there are examples (China, ex Soviet Union, various other dictatorships) where people would accept a warm bed, safety, being able to work, get healthcare with sever restrictions to speech and travel vs having the freedom for speech, travel, but not having the minimum basic necessities. There aren't too many recent cases were people oppressed politically were able to win the majority and overthrow the government and turn it into a democracy when there is otherwise enough stability economic, social to start with. Americans I feel (and I would know, I live here too now) have swallowed quite a bit of propaganda and they will tell you long stories about how Democracy is just the best, capitalism is the best etc etc. I used to think that too, but I am not so sure anymore. Maybe that is why a lot of wars are sold to the American people "we are bringing Democracy" and "Freedom". That has a good local appeal. Internationally maybe others read that in the same category as North Korea telling its people they live on Paradise on Earth.
  - 13y ago

randomafrican 13y ago

Depens on what you think about when you think about colonialism. If you're thinking about the period when Africa was ruled by European power, I'd say it didnt help (mostly because of the deeply authoritarian aspect of that rule) but there wasnt much to destroy at that point. Then there is the period Right before which has some deeper effect on trust, corruption, institutions, stability, trade, population movements: the transatlantic slave trade. Edit: and the eastern one too.