Colonize Africa?

[redsox39]

Did the world abandon Africa to soon? Should the Colonial Powers stayed longer?

I think for the "One World" government people, you have to say yes. For the "Free Dafur Crowd", you have to say yes...

But I don't know, what does GMF Think?


PS- TY Pax for the idea

[Pax Britannia]

I shall re-conquer Africa for God and Her Majesty the Queen.

Then I shall conquer Halle Berrys ass.

[Archetype]

We shouldn't have fucked with them at all in the first place.

[Yelram]

We shouldn't have fucked with them at all in the first place.

Then the argument would be that we isolated Africa from the rest of the world, and prevented them from modernizing. Either way, the white man is the "bad guy". Its the narrative nowadays.

[Rover]

Take up the White Man's burden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_man's_burden)--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to naught.

[Philips25]

Well... we managed to effectively conquer Sierra Leone with 800 Royal Marines and half a dozen ships in 2000 (vaguely embarrassing that... started off as us going in to evacuate civilians... ended with us in charge and a large portion of the sierra leonean population calling for re-colonisation).

[Philips25]

Hmm.... just checked my facts (wrote the above from memory);

It was a thousand... mainly paras. Still, once again we accidently ended up with a pseudo colony... which was a lil bit embarrasing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/91060.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1065898.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army#Recent__and_current_conflicts

[freegood]

Why? We rape its resources already.

No need to risk occupying troops for that.

[Claibo]

Vast regional instability and more local wars than you can shake an AK-47 at... I am willing to bet that there are many displaced peoples who would love to be re-colonized.

[vasili denisov]

Given the ten million congolese killed off under King Leopold's stewardship, the genocide of the herero, that most of the conflicts on the continent lie with mixing tribes in because of country borders drawn up by the colonials that had nothing to do with tribal regions, the use of murderous tyrants like Mobutu Sese Seko as Cold War proxies (who anyway double dealed with the Soviets), the utter fuck-up of the Belgium government in handing off power to the Hutus which planted the seeds for the genocide that would later take place, the Portuguese war in Mozambique...given those selected (though there are many, many more) lowlights, I'd say, hmmmmmmmmmmmm...no.

If I had to write dialogue for the whole continent of Africa about this, it'd be this:

Wish you had left early. Wish you hadn't stayed. Wish you'd been wiped out by the bubonic plague before you ever set foot on the Serengeti. Because, brother: better you than me.

[redsox39]

This actually seems to have some "Iraq War" parallels...Ok, bear with me for a second.

Should we have been there or not can be debated. But since we are there, what vacuum will we leave when we go?

[Archetype]

Then the argument would be that we isolated Africa from the rest of the world, and prevented them from modernizing. Either way, the white man is the "bad guy". Its the narrative nowadays.

No, I'm saying now there's black people in America. Nobody wants that.

[redsox39]

No, I'm saying now there's black people in America. Nobody wants that.


I think we are getting off topic...not that this thread had much life to begin with...

[Archetype]

lulz, white power!

[Claydon]

Sudan is in the situation it is in because of the chinese. The PLA has forces in Sudan to secure oil facilities, and Sudan is one of China's biggest customers for weapons. Furthermore, with China's veto power on the Security Council you can pretty much gurantee that nothing will get done. China needs the 200,000 barrels coming out of Sudan, and they will let the brown people die for it..as fucked up as that sounds. However, ultimately I suppose all powerful nations do this kind of shit.

[Philips25]

However, ultimately I suppose all powerful nations do this kind of shit.

*hides the diamonds, gold, iron ore and assorted other bits and bobs that we nicked from the various colonies under the carpet*

Whatever do you mean dear boy? Britain would never dream of doing such underhand things...

[Claydon]

*hides the diamonds, gold, iron ore and assorted other bits and bobs that we nicked from the various colonies under the carpet*

Whatever do you mean dear boy? Britain would never dream of doing such underhand things...

Yah I know, those spanish ships just somehow sank on their own, and the silver floated on the gulf stream to England.

[Philips25]

Yah I know, those spanish ships just somehow sank on their own, and the silver floated on the gulf stream to England.

*coughs*

erm... quite, thats EXACTLY what happened...

[redsox39]

I had no idea so many people wanted to colonize my asshole.

I just realized the word "colon" is in there...HA!

[taters]

1- Colonialism was both ethnically, morally, humanitarianly, and (if you want to go this route) economically unfruitful once the industrial revolution kicked into full swing. Thats why europe pulled out of africa. It costed more than it had to gain after slavery ended. Plus, it provided massive support for pro-soviet regimes, something western nations feared.


2- The imperialist in africa didnt go so long ago, or easily. It took Malaria (something africans have developed more of an immunity to, and europeans had a susceptibility to), and TONS of wars (remarkably that go un noted in mot eurocentric history classes) that did it. Angola, martinique, south africa (though it was the racist boers who fought it), ethiopia, ivory coast, liberia, egypt, mozambique...all fought MASSIVELY violent colonial wars to kick europe out of their lands.

[wacker]

How in the fuck can this even be debated? Its like asking was world war 2 a good thing, lots of people died but Hitler was stopped.

[taters]

How in the fuck can this even be debated? Its like asking was world war 2 a good thing, lots of people died but Hitler was stopped.

If you ask a lot of the christian right here in america, they think it was a good thing, because it allowed for the creation of israel, and forced the uncoming fight with communism.

[wacker]

umm.....ok?

[Philips25]

1- Colonialism was both ethnically, morally, humanitarianly, and (if you want to go this route) economically unfruitful once the industrial revolution kicked into full swing.

Then how did Rhodes manage to turn such huge profits in the 1880's-90s? The Industrial revolution took place in the early half of the 19th Century, Britain was industrialised by the time De Beers gut into full swing. In fact one of the key factors for the profitability for the British African colonies was that we were industrialised, giving us a key market edge over our competitors and the Africans themselves...

Martini-Henry rifles / Artillery / Maxim Guns > Spears

[taters]

Then how did Rhodes manage to turn such huge profits in the 1880's-90s?
Slave labor, not industrial labor. Not to say he wasnt an industrialist.


The Industrial revolution took place in the early half of the 19th Century, Britain was industrialised by the time De Beers gut into full swing. In fact one of the key factors for the profitability for the British African colonies was that we were industrialised, giving us a key market edge over our competitors and the Africans themselves...

It started in the latter half of the 18th century though. And Debeers was not at all the sole imperial presense in Africa, nor was it the oldest, nor was it the largest.

But as I said, South Africans (the boers, but still) fought imperialist britain. They lost, and rightfully so, but they fought a massively bloody war. Id have to look it up, but I believe reports of casualties in that war are one of the primary causes for the labor/liberal party (equivalent) takeover of parliament in England. Im shakey on british history, so dont hold me to that. Someone here may know better. Pax Maybe.

British South Africa did not fully industrialize until far later than most other places. The advantage the aparthied government had over other african nations was not industry (which was present, but not as big as several other places, like india, or egypt) it was 1- European investment and money flowing in, and 2- European weapons (which served to give support for USSR in anti-imperial governments surrounding british south africa). Were it not for the red scare, South Africa would have been taken back from the boers and british, probably 50 years ago.

[Philips25]

Slave labor, not industrial labor. Not to say he wasnt an industrialist.

It started in the latter half of the 18th century though. And Debeers was not at all the sole imperial presense in Africa, nor was it the oldest, nor was it the largest.


The Agrarian revolution took place in the later half of the 18th, the Industrial is typically seen as to have started following the Napoleonic Wars (Waterloo being taken as the end, in 1815) when British industrial capacity and development exploded.

And did I say that Rhodes wasn't an expoitative arsehole? NO. And No, De Beers wasn't the sole mining corporation, but it is perhaps the most infamous, epitimising the worst excesses of the 'New Imperialism' period of the later stages of the 19thC. Rhodes, using the profits to create Rhodesia (a hideously racist regime).


450,000 British troops flooded the Orange Free State and Transvaal, making it impossible for the 22,000 Boer commandos from operating freely, thereby winning the war for Britain through the use of extreme methods. Internment camps, scorched earth and a barbwire / blockhouse network that restricted the Boers movements all combined to win the 2nd Boer War for Britain under the direction of General Kitchener.

It was the brutality of the meassures used and not nessecerily the casualties that were taken that caused a major public outcry over the war 1899-1902

[Claydon]

1- Colonialism was both ethnically, morally, humanitarianly, and (if you want to go this route) economically unfruitful once the industrial revolution kicked into full swing. Thats why europe pulled out of africa. It costed more than it had to gain after slavery ended. Plus, it provided massive support for pro-soviet regimes, something western nations feared.


2- The imperialist in africa didnt go so long ago, or easily. It took Malaria (something africans have developed more of an immunity to, and europeans had a susceptibility to), and TONS of wars (remarkably that go un noted in mot eurocentric history classes) that did it. Angola, martinique, south africa (though it was the racist boers who fought it), ethiopia, ivory coast, liberia, egypt, mozambique...all fought MASSIVELY violent colonial wars to kick europe out of their lands.

Can we expect the same with the chinese since they are basically doing a neo-colonialism?

[Pax Britannia]

But as I said, South Africans (the boers, but still) fought imperialist britain. They lost, and rightfully so, but they fought a massively bloody war. Id have to look it up, but I believe reports of casualties in that war are one of the primary causes for the labor/liberal party (equivalent) takeover of parliament in England. Im shakey on british history, so dont hold me to that. Someone here may know better. Pax Maybe.

Your right. The Conservatives lost the election of 1906 in a crushing defeat to the Liberal party (the labour part didnt exist yet). Mainly because people were so disgusted with the conduct of the war.

Just for the record I dont think anyone here is seriously advocating the re-colonisation of Africa. We could argue about the rights or wrongs of what the Europeans did in Africa but I doubt that really matters to the average African these days.

[taters]

Can we expect the same with the chinese since they are basically doing a neo-colonialism?

(Wow, I sorta agree with you) They are practicing economic colonialism, not actual colonialism.But in todays times, I could not pretend to guess what will happen with China and their future, other than growth, and I would call anyone not in china who claims they can a liar.

philips I wasnt arguing with you, except maybe on the different between industrialism in europe compared to full scale (workable) industrialism in british south africa.

[Claydon]

(Wow, I sorta agree with you) They are practicing economic colonialism, not actual colonialism.But in todays times, I could not pretend to guess what will happen with China and their future, other than growth, and I would call anyone not in china who claims they can a liar.

philips I wasnt arguing with you, except maybe on the different between industrialism in europe compared to full scale (workable) industrialism in british south africa.

ergo neo-colonialism ..... dumbass

[taters]

ergo neo-colonialism ..... dumbass

If that your definition, but my definition would fall along the lines of defining neo-colonialism as a form of mass geopolitical emmigration with intent reaching beyond temporary or work/lifestyle. Kinda like Chinese people in the Russian Far east, or Albanians in Kosovo (before it became a republic) or (a MUCH harsher but not spoken of example) Katrina refugees 'moved' to cities, but only in heavily black neighborhoods within those cities.

[Claydon]

If that your definition, but my definition would fall along the lines of defining neo-colonialism as a form of mass geopolitical emmigration with intent reaching beyond temporary or work/lifestyle. Kinda like Chinese people in the Russian Far east, or Albanians in Kosovo (before it became a republic) or (a MUCH harsher but not spoken of example) Katrina refugees 'moved' to cities, but only in heavily black neighborhoods within those cities.

It is not my definition, it is the definition given by academia.

[taters]

It is not my definition, it is the definition given by academia.

May I ask what academia?

[freegood]

Some balance on this crazy train.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\11\01\story_1-11-2008_pg3_6
Saturday, November 01, 2008

View: No strings attached —Edward Friedman (http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/facultystaff/faculty/index.php?id=25&show=facdir)

The critique of China in Africa as neo-colonialism is not the total truth and omits that China could trigger an African rise out of poverty. Indeed, World Bank figures already show that Chinese investments have sped Africa’s pace of growth

That China’s a superpower in Africa was suddenly, painfully apparent to European leaders in 2006.

Once colonised by European nations, Africa garners more attention from Europe than the United States. Europeans provided hundreds of billions of dollars of loans and aid to African governments after nations won their independence. But little growth resulted from that money, no matter what strategy was applied. In the 1990s, the Europeans tried another approach, hoping yet again to give Africa a new start.

The Europeans forgave much of African indebtedness, then offering new monies, with good governance conditionalities attached. That is, to receive funds, the governments would have to begin to clean up corruption, respect organised efforts of societal groups and move toward respecting fundamental human rights.

Angola, a major oil exporter, became a test case in 2006. Despite huge oil wealth, Angola suffered financial crisis created by massive corruption and plunder. While the Europeans often conceded to corrupt dictators who faked adherence to the European conditions, in 2006 Angola brushed aside both hypocrisy and the policy of conditionality, instead accepting a multibillion-dollar, no-strings-attached fund from China, thus defeating Europe’s policy aimed at limiting the sources of bad governance, failed states and civil war.

Suddenly, Europeans were aware of a rising authoritarian China in Africa. China had amassed almost $2 trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves. This foreign exchange reflected trade imbalances, which also upset Europeans. The growing trade deficit with China seemed to cost Europe jobs and undermined the tax basis of social welfare states. Popular European anger intensified anxiety about Chinese policies in Africa fostering bad governance and contributing to an exodus of Africans into Europe.

China’s rapid economic rise and wasteful production inefficiencies brought a hunger for energy and other resources, and Africa could help. Chinese state-owned enterprises could outbid Europeans for contracts and leasing rights, aided by interest-free capital from Chinese state banks. Chinese presence and policy spread all over the continent, and Chinese investments swiftly caught up with those from America and Europe.

The trend line suggested that China would soon be weightier in Africa than any other nation or region in the world. Authoritarian China’s new superpower clout, which disregarded human rights abuses, had reached Africa, and was largely welcomed, especially by authoritarian regimes.

In paying for oil in the Sudan, China provided Sudanese ruling groups the wherewithal to stabilise a government responsible for atrocities in Darfur, shored up corrupt leaders of the Congo, backed Zimbabwe’s bankrupt Mugabe regime against African democratisers and European sanctions, and spent huge amounts for oil in corrupt Nigeria. Sudden influx of Chinese wealth enriched African leaders.

China undercut efforts to promote good governance in Africa, and Europe viewed Chinese policies as a disaster. The Europeans therefore invited China to join with them in fostering needed political and administrative changes in Africa. China, however, brushed aside the invitation to cooperate, refusing even to join the European organisation meant to make energy investments transparent so that African peoples could benefit from Africa’s wealth instead of corrupt elites.

Europeans concluded that China hurts Africa. In Africa, civil society groups, labour unions and democratic political parties similarly understood China as but another chapter in exploitative neo-colonialism that would not benefit Africans, instead propping up greedy, corrupt African regimes that ripped off their own nationals.

But many had bristled at the European effort to tell Africans how to run their governments as arrogance, a renewed colonial approach and represented China’s offer of no-strings-attached money as how Africans should be treated, with dignity and as adults. After all, China had never colonised Africa and Europe had failed the continent in the past. Africans insisted that, as the Chinese had raised themselves from misery to world power in one generation after the death of old-fashioned Stalinist tyrant Mao Zedong in 1976, so China could help raise Africa from stagnation.

Observers in Europe and democrats in Africa tended to disagree, seeing corrupt and useless African rulers grabbing a Chinese lifesaver to avoid a transition to good governance. In this critique, China is ripping-off African resources and propping up African tyrants to the detriment of the African people.

To be sure, there is truth to this critique. Chinese have illegally harvested timber and ripped off resources. But this critique of China in Africa as neo-colonialism is not the total truth and omits that China could trigger an African rise out of poverty. Indeed, World Bank figures already show that Chinese investments have sped Africa’s pace of growth. As Beijing sees it, China in Africa in the 21st century will be like Japan in East and Southeast Asia in the half century after the end of World War Two. Japan, then, as China today, was uninterested in promoting democracy and human rights. It too acted on economic imperatives. But if one plugs into the economic dynamo, what Japanese called the “lead goose”, one benefits. One learns best practices almost unconsciously. The boon of the dynamic leader spreads and spills over into the nations playing catch-up.

There is a flying goose effect, that is, the lead Asian country keeps moving up the value-added ladder as labour costs increase and the currency rises in value. That prices the country out of lower-end markets. The production is then transferred to follower geese, who then similarly move up economically. Those that don’t join the formation, as the military tyranny in Burma and the Stalinist sultanate in North Korea did not follow Japan, lag. Similarly, those Africans who see China as a saviour would in fact benefit from joining China and following its lead.

China is hot-housing this flying-geese development. Beijing is pouring money into Africa for everything from infrastructure to business ties. It is bulding five special economic zones, which were pioneered in Taiwan, that support business and welcome hard-workers to make life easier for Chinese investors and exporters. From these five spots, economic dynamism will spread as Africans are attracted to the SEZs. Governments will then build infrastructures and compete for successful enterprises.

Finally, Chinese are moving to Africa in unprecedented numbers, carrying entrepreneurial frenzy and ties to lower-end factories that look to move to low-wage Africa to stay competitive. There are already more Chinese in the former UK colony of Nigeria than there were English at the height of the British empire; there are already more Chinese in the former Portuguese colony of Angola than there are Portuguese.

Expect millions more Chinese to relocate, since close to 300 million are still locked in Mao-era style stagnation in China’s countryside. Some millions of these hard-working, ambitious people see Africa as a land of opportunity. Compared to Europeans, Chinese live more poorly and work at a lower income for smaller slices in profits, yet have already found numerous profitable opportunities in Africa where Europeans found none.

Critics of Chinese policy who see China ripping off Africa and helping to entrench corrupt African elites may turn out to be right. But Africans are willing to give China the chance to replicate in Africa wealth-generating processes that have made Asia the fastest growing region of the world since 1945, with no end in sight. Europe, many Africans conclude, failed in Africa, and it’s hard to fault Africans for finding a way ahead by tying in with China. Perhaps the Chinese and Africans are right and, as Japan transformed Asia, so China can transform Africa.


==---=====

What's interesting is that we (US, UK, France, Germany) formed similar relationships with ME states like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait for their oil. I guess the difference was that those despots were British/French placed figureheads and therefore legitimately royal, while there's no semblance nor shroud of legitimacy for any African despot. Of course, we also like to forget Cold War maneuverings in the ME and Africa that was partly responsible for several despots being propped up by both sides.

But with vacuously pretty titles such as Islamofascist or neo-colonialist, we can safely wash ourselves from blame and merrily play the game of demonizing the other side for the Third World's troubles.

[Claydon]

I never meant to suggest we were pure as the driven snow with regards to africa, ME etc. However, with the importation of hundreds of thousands of chinese workers to Africa, the PLA in Sudan, and the propping up of some governments with chinese, it is a type of neocolonialism. However, one could easily apply this to US multinationals as well.

[redsox39]

It seems this is a hot topic again!

[Philips25]

Why exactly?

Other than the Congo going mental yet again... whats changed?

[Limp]

Should have been "I want to Colonize your colon."

FAIL.

[redsox39]

I just saw the same conversation going on, on another thread, and was calling for them to be combined.

I was watching for awhile to see if anyone had switched sides or stances, but it is pretty much the same thing.

And someone is always going crazy in Africa. TIA.

[Soup Nazi]

Pfft, people are just interested in Africa again because 24 premiered last night.