Replies

"the most damaging legacy of colonialism and imperialism in the world has not been the global economic structures and relations it has left behind nor the patterns of modern 'neo-imperialist' economic and cultural relations of which it was the undoubted historical forerunner. Rather its most damaging legacy has been the psychological Siamese twins of endemic guilt on the European side and endemic psychological dependence on the African side, legacies which make truth telling hard and the adult taking of responsibility even harder. Imperialism fucked up the heads of so many people whom it touched - both colonialists and colonized (Frantz Fanon was absolutely and deeply right about that) and until that - ultimately depressing - legacy of its existence is finally killed, neither Africa nor African studies will be able to make real progress."

Pure rubbish. If the author was correct and if I was wrong on this point, then *other* colonial states would likewise be f'd up to this day just like Africa. Yet the former colonial states of the U.S., Canada, Australia, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan (if it counts in this line of thought) are hardly seeing their annual GDP decline as is most all of Africa (with a few exceptions even there, however). So clearly the author's line of reasoning doesn't hold water.

And the author goes on to claim that Africa can only be saved by African leaders. Again, the author misfires. Africa does need better leadership, but until its own people take Continental control of their own destinies, they will remain mere pawns for self-centered tyrants to exploit.

If you look at the former colonies that have thrived, rather than at Africa, you will see that those that thrived tended to have very democratic societies or republics that gave/give their people the overriding eventual voice in governance. These nations tend to have a Rule of Law rather than a tribal-based Rule of Man, such that the human, civil, and property rights of the lowest of the low were and are protected from outright aggression by even the most powerful in those societies, a far cry from the land confiscations that we see today in places like Zimbabwe.

No, the author has failed to grasp or accept that tyranny, socialism, and tribalism are all about taking what has already been produced, rather than about establishing a stable civilization that can produce more than can be taken.

Call me when the richest man in most African nations is *NOT* their current or previous leader. Such winner-takes-all kleptocracies are simply *NOT* going to prosper. Who wants to work so that only the *other* guy gets rich, after all?!

Call me when the Zulu's have taken up arms and decided that the experiments of the ZANU and ANC must be crushed for their people to prosper.

Call me when the fighting in Sierra Leone is *NOT* about who gets control of the diamond mines, but about establishing a Constitutional government for the people, by the people.

Until then, external influences into Africa are going to be short-lived feel-good projects, or at best such foreign interventions might rise to the level of temporary aid programs for the worst of their inevitable future medical and food crises.

In short, the African *people*, not their leaders, not outsiders like us, must solve their own systemic problems.

And until they do so, it is racist to presume that they are living in anything besides that which they want for themselves already. If they truly want tribalism and kleptocracy, then they honestly have a right to live that way.

It's their continent after all, not ours.

Africa's problems are legion.

Many do not understand them and dismiss them as pedantic patronage. But once these problems are addressed, the dark continent will begin to see a renaissance that would be welcomed by the rest of the globe.

First is Feudalism. This problem could be grouped with tribalism, but I hold out hope for the various tribes of africa to move forward once they get away from feudalism.

The feudal period of history is earmarked by tribal wars and skirmishes that consumed many and left distrust and old ways of thought deeply ingrained.

Despotism is not only an issue faced by the citizens of the continent, but by the remainder of the planet. Zealots, despots and would-be tyrannical warlords rule many of the nation-states across Africa, hiding behind their race and their percieved oppression as European colonies.

Thugs like Amin and Mugabe have risen in the past 50 years, backed up by gangs (who are tribes in and of themselves) to help impose their tyrannical rule. The West has ignored this, primarily due to the lack of a threat from these petty thugs (though many have a mistaken perception of this as a racial problem, the problem is purely nationalistic and defense-related).

Due to the influx of Islam into these nation-states, we can ill-afford to ignore these thugs for much longer. The despots and tyrants will gladly give aid and comfort to AQ and other terror elements of the new World War.

Xenophobia, believe it or not, is another problem. The so-called elite of Africa believe that Westerners are 'tainted' by Anglos, and that they are not able to see how to move Africa forward - ignoring the other major problems that I've mentioned, and a myriad of minor issues that are caused by these major ones.

The major problems can be combatted with time; because of the despotism, and their acquiesence to radical Islam, we will eventually be forced to address them, lest the terrorists gain a foothold that will be hard to pry loose.

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

Colonialism is a natural response by a nation-state to a collapsed state, or a region in which there is no state. In and of itself it is not a negative thing, nor is it automatically something that should inspire guilt or opprobrium.

In certain cases, of course, it was accompanied by horrific crimes. The Belgian and German colonies in Africa are good examples. Belgians and Germans have a lot to answer for as a result of their dealings in Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries. In their case colonialism meant mass murder and a ferocious repression.

But any lawless region will act as a vacuum, and people with an interest in operating there will be forced to see to their own security; if they are successful, the secure area they establish for themselves acts as a magnet for the people of the region themselves, and the "colony" gives birth to itself. This is separate from any venal motives which may exist, or which may subsequently take advantage of the monopoly of order which their operations have brought.

This is going to happen again and again. We won't call it "colonialism" anymore, since it has become a dirty word, but it will still exist and thankfully so.

A modern example would be where valuable deposits of some natural resources lie in the territory of a failed state. Oil and mining companies want to be able to operate there, but in safety. So they begin to work with the local leadership to establish the conditions of physical security and contract law they need to be able to risk their investment dollars. They may subsidize the creation of a constabulary, and the building of roads and bridges. The infrastructure and security bubble they create for themselves allows local businesses to operate in legal and physical safety as well, and they also begin to prosper. It is a kind of colonialism that is much better disguised than the 19th century variety, and is much more respectful of the sovereignty of the countries where they operate. And there is nothing evil about it.

Whether it is ultimately a positive thing for the people of the region depends to the degree to which it brings rule of law, and respect for individual citizens. If the "colony" provides cover for crimes against humanity, as in the Belgian and German models, then all bets are off, of course. But failed states such as Somalia, and Sierra Leone, and Liberia, cry out for some kind of neo-colonialism. UN and humanitarian agencies and regional peacekeepers are in the process of creating a kind of colonial rule there.

The great difference in modern colonialism is that the purpose is not to build some kind of permanent empire, but to establish order and the rule of law, and to relinquish political control to the people themselves. But rule of law and respect for individual rights do not spring fully formed from out of the unformed universe, they must be established by an act of will if you don't want to wait millenia for them to develop organically out of the native soil.

Afghanistan and Iraq have recently fallen under outside rule, and if Pakistan implodes it will force outside control. We won't call it colonialism, and I will avoid the use of the word "empire". But chaos demands and invites a strong outsider to impose order, whether out of humanitarian concerns, or pragmatism, self defense, or commercial opportunities, or as is common a combination of motives. It is not automatically evil, it can in fact be a positive good; it is an evil if the power imposing order behaves in an evil manner.

It seems that 'studies' programs are for academic elitists to do what this fellow has done: provide a perspective of the history and nature of present day chaos. Whether it's because the analysis is leftist, academic, or elitist there are no specific solutions to be had in any of their discussions. They do however prescribe the styles of social, religious, economic, and political life that need to be imposed on the dominant/majority group. The only effort these 'studies' programs can make is the revision of history to promote a social movement with at least some political power in one jurisdiction or another. None of them are capable of developing a schedule and list of steps to take to displace the particular pathology of humanity for which there is a 'studies' program for their group so that they can hold a seat at the table for being nothing more than breathing and warm. For those who use dysfunction as the occasion for them to lament the failure of humanity to fix something, the cure is death to their narcissitic possing for producing nothing but their own celebrity.