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.

Bump .

As they say "it's the culture, stupid"

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

There are key differences between those states and Africa. The US, Canada, and Australia were settled by immigrants. The native populations were overwhelmed and pushed aside. The others have overwhelming majorities of one ethnic group, and India still has problems with poverty in areas dominated by an ethnic minority.
Other countries that were formed by some rather unthinking Western notions of where borders should be drawn have also had economic problems. Iraq and Israel are two.