4 ms·

> countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism I’ve heard this statement and it is completely false (I did not take issue with the rest of your p

by w00pla 17y ago

> countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism I’ve heard this statement and it is completely false (I did not take issue with the rest of your post). Colonialism actually introduced a lot of technology into Africa (things such as the wheel were not widely used). The most heavily colonialised countries in Africa are the best. A good example is Botswana. They did not return to their pre-tribal ways but basically adapted the British system. South Africa is also heavily “colonialised” and it is the only industrial country. Countries such as Lesotho and Swaziland had minimal colonial influences and still have much of their traditional leadership (uninterrupted). Those two countries are also the biggest shitholes in Africa. The traditional African governance was a strong-man (chief) with absolute power. It was basically an absolute monarch who is only removed by someone more powerful. That is why Africans in rural areas usually like a strong-man – anyone else is seen as a weak leader. A leader who is compassionate is seen as weak. I personally would content that a lot of African countries returned to their pre-colonial government structure.

maxklein 17y ago
Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. African society is usually not constructed that way. But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.
- eru 17y ago
  Europe and Asia are diverse places. (As is Africa.) E.g. the German Kaisers used to be weak leaders most of the time. And Kaisertum was never hereditary.
  - eru 17y ago
    Was never hereditary in the Heiliges Romisches Reich Deutscher Nation.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal). At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern. The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power. The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though. > But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument. And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.
  - maxklein 17y ago
    When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa". Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders. This is why the chief "controls" the land - it is his job to make impartial decisions on land. He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe). Rather, he is a caretaker. In Europe, the king is a man who tells people what to do, and his decisions are completely separated from the people. In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. His very role depends on him being the voice of the people - it is impossible for a chief to not do this, because he does not have an army to force the people to follow what he wants. His army are the very people he leads. Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Africa is mostly compared of Niger-Congo speaking people, and most of them use exactly the same system I describe here. The far South Africans, which you are basing your argument on, are not representative, just as Ethiopians or Somalis would not be representative. I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The structure of society does not allow this.
radu_floricica 17y ago
I mostly meant that as a polite version of "didn't manage to advance beyond the colonial age". Thanks for not forgiving it :)
- w00pla 17y ago
  > countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism You have edited your post now. The reason I take issue with your post is because of the “African Renaissance” idea. This idea/ideology (which was mostly promoted by Thabo Mbeki) states that Africa was a wondrous well developed place full of technology, culture, art, industry and peace (it goes hand in hand with strong historic revisionism). The idea was that colonialism destroyed Africa and Africa should just recover from colonialism. The problem with this is that it does not address the current core issues of African problems. It also lays the blame for all problems on colonialisation – instead of corrupt African governments and systematic problems. It basically absolves current African governments from all responsibility.

by w00pla 17y ago

maxklein 17y ago

Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. African society is usually not constructed that way. But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.

eru 17y ago
Europe and Asia are diverse places. (As is Africa.) E.g. the German Kaisers used to be weak leaders most of the time. And Kaisertum was never hereditary.
- eru 17y ago
  Was never hereditary in the Heiliges Romisches Reich Deutscher Nation.
w00pla 17y ago
> Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal). At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern. The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power. The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though. > But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument. And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.
- maxklein 17y ago
  When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa". Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders. This is why the chief "controls" the land - it is his job to make impartial decisions on land. He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe). Rather, he is a caretaker. In Europe, the king is a man who tells people what to do, and his decisions are completely separated from the people. In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. His very role depends on him being the voice of the people - it is impossible for a chief to not do this, because he does not have an army to force the people to follow what he wants. His army are the very people he leads. Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Africa is mostly compared of Niger-Congo speaking people, and most of them use exactly the same system I describe here. The far South Africans, which you are basing your argument on, are not representative, just as Ethiopians or Somalis would not be representative. I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The structure of society does not allow this.

radu_floricica 17y ago

I mostly meant that as a polite version of "didn't manage to advance beyond the colonial age". Thanks for not forgiving it :)

w00pla 17y ago
> countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism You have edited your post now. The reason I take issue with your post is because of the “African Renaissance” idea. This idea/ideology (which was mostly promoted by Thabo Mbeki) states that Africa was a wondrous well developed place full of technology, culture, art, industry and peace (it goes hand in hand with strong historic revisionism). The idea was that colonialism destroyed Africa and Africa should just recover from colonialism. The problem with this is that it does not address the current core issues of African problems. It also lays the blame for all problems on colonialisation – instead of corrupt African governments and systematic problems. It basically absolves current African governments from all responsibility.