Don't Forget Africa, Says Geldof

Africa's an act of man. Millions die each year completely unnecessarily and that can be adjusted ... The issue is one of poverty and debt

And of war, and of mismanaged economies, and of corruption, and of people having more kids than they can feed. All self-inflicted.

Europe did not "leave" Africa -- they were driven out by so-called liberation movements and anti-colonial agitation. Whether colonial rule was too long or too short, it ended because of pressure from the Left and the desire of Africans to take what the Europeans had built. Contrary to all promises and expectations -- except for the warnings of a few reviled ex-colonialists -- even the most fortunate African countries in terms of natural resources and benign colonial rule, such as Uganda, Rhodesia, and Kenya, all went downhill, persecuting and driving out their most productive citizens.

The European and American industry and educated middle class that you refer to were not created in place by force of nature but were the product of human effort. The problem with Africa is the Africans -- or more accurately, the behavior, culture, and beliefs of Africans. To progress, they have to embrace the beliefs and practices that led to Europe and America's development and rise -- but that is utterly contrary to the advice they usually get from the West and their own intellectuals.

Africa's best hope is not aid or leadership from its intellectuals or its rapacious political class. Rather, the hope of Africa is the strongly traditional and energetic brand of Christianity that has developed there and which, in several generations, may remake its peoples. Indeed, even before then, African Christianity seems likely to become a pillar of strength for traditional Christianity in the West. On the whole though, we are more likely to get a Black Pope before Africa rises from its self-forged and profitable misery./p>

I think that we are leading to the same place. I do not think that all the blame for Africa are at the feet of any one group. Africa without colonialism would not be better off today, they would still suffer from many of the same issues. However, the continent could have been better served by the Europe before they departed. I am not sure that any comparison can be made between what happened in the United States, as the majority of the population were European colonists who shared similar ideals, whether religious, economic, or social (a Catholic, or a Puritan shared in the belief of the divinity of Christ, but disagreed on forms of worship). Africa is an amalgam of various religions and is unfortunately becoming more under the heel of Islam. I agree that a common belief in Christianity would go a long ways to helping them solve some of their problems, but this will have to be a peaceful conversion not a mandated conversion.

I agree that the current political and intellectual class would be of little use to help Africa overcome its problems, as they are generally the cause of the current problems. When I wrote of an educated class, I was not referring to the intellectual elite, but a literate society. Someone who can read is far more difficult to oppress. I am not saying that it cannot be done (see the Warsaw Pack countries), but literacy can lead to critical thought, which can lead to much better things while ignorance brings only more ignorance. You are also right that Africa has to change Africa, but I am not sure that it can be done as Africa is currently composed. I still contend that this would be less difficult if the borders were redrawn to reflect the realities of the peoples of Africa, and not how they were determined in the Age of Discovery.

As for aid, I believe that as it is currently given, it is more of a hindrance to change than a catalyst to it. Most of the aid flows into the hands of those that wish to keep the status quo of ignorance and oppression. I had mentioned in a previous post that the debt that most countries of Africa currently have is a good thing, as it limits the amount of money that the tyrants can borrow to further oppress their people.

The word "leave" is not incorrect. Yes they were pushed out, but they still left. The United Kingdom was pushed out of India, but they had established a middle class, industry, and an educational system. India is not perfect, they certainly have many problems, but they are a much brighter picture than anything in India (yes, even than the former British colonies). If other countries had prepared their African colonies for even a little self-rule I believe that Africa's future would be more positive. But Germany, France, and Belgium never looked at Africa with the eye towards the "White Man's Burden", but simply prolonging the mercantile system.

RE: Colonialist Europeans didn't have to leave when Africans were pushing them out. - Well, I guess anyone can decide to stay and try to 'fix' things or you could go there and 'teach them dumb natives.' Better yet take your wife, kids and scads of money, 'culturally appropriate' i.e. very basic machinery (like to build and operate sanitary wells, purify water, etc. and educational material. Of course, your wife might object to being tortured and raped, your children abused and either raped and murdered or sold into slavery. You might check on the fates of the missionaries and others who attemped to remain in Africa to help in the colonial transition. Your ideas are of course, all good and well intended but they HAVE ALL been tried before but failed. Where do you think the BILLIONS in foreign aid went?

As for the insects and swamps - DDT was very effective in cleaning things up - unfortunately the environmental wackos have effectively blocked its use (BTW - the EPA has publicly admitted DDT is not lethal to humans, animals and plant life even at dosages ridiculously higher than that needed to eliminate malarial mosquitos, flies, etc. unfortunately that didn't prevent them from caving in to the environmental wackos and banning it.

Read your history, the European wars among Christians was (is) every bit as nasty, brutal and viscious as what happens in Africa (check out Northern Ireland vs/ the Irish Republic or the death rate just in Germany when Catholics and the various Protestand sects had at it during the Reformation - the Inquisition gets all the bad press but the death rate in just 1 year during the Reformation exceeded the total deaths over 10 years of the Inquisition by a factor of at least a thousand) - it is just that most of us have learned to control ourselves for the common good.

India had to face up to its own fantasies - they had to suffer through the economic ignorance of Ghandi, Nerhru (spelling?) and a whole series of socialist and communist leaders before they even began to pull themselves together.

It sounds to me that your ideal solution would be to re-introduce colonialism, forcing your new 'natural' boundaries and then 'a miracle happens' all these natives that found so much satisfaction in slaughtering each other as well as missionaries, doctors and former educated and able colonials who were trying to help them - will let themselves be led into the promised land by another generation of 'liberal colonials'. And somehow all this is to get done with handouts from the West. Sorry, it just doesn't pass the "What does history tell us?" test.
!

Geldof's logic totally escapes me. I would think that an unforseen act of nature would evoke more sympathy for the victims, than the results of the follies of their own kith and kin. But I am going home to eat and watch foot ball, so if someone wants to express outrage at my lack of sympathy, my response will have to wait for another occasion.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

OK, so "the worst of the lot were Germany, France and Belgium" gives a pass to Portugal, Spain, Italy, and G.B.
Of course both Spain and Germany raised strong support from local nationals during two world wars and the UK left behind successes as well as failures.

Great Britain left no great support base behind in the United States and Spain left none behind in Mexico. You are invited to explain why these instances divert from the 'colonial curse' left upon the African continent.

To kingsurfer - hit the "spell" button, it works for me.

I am not sure you actually read what I wrote. I never offered any solutions, only pointed out some of the causes of Africa's problems. I did not say that changing the borders would cure Africa of its problems, only suggested that it may make it easier, meaning that the way they are currently drawn is one (of many) impediment. I also did not call for any further foreign aid, just the opposite, I specifically said it should be stopped. I am quite aware that by simply reversing errors made in the past will provide a solution to the effects of those errors. I do not remember ever stating that colonialism needs to be revisited upon Africa, as a matter of fact I stated that I am sure that the region would have been no worse if it had not been colonized.

As for DDT, I completely agree with you on this topic, it has been one of the greatest crimes against humanity perpetrated by ill-meaning liberals.

I did not mention Spain because we were discussing Africa, and frankly I forgot about Portugal, which I should not have, because its former colonies have been some of the biggest failures. Italy was not mentioned simply because I was referring to those countries that were "colonists", it is hard to say that Italy's invasion of Ethiopia was colonizing in the same vein as GB, Portugal, or any of the other Europeans had done earlier. Interestingly at the time Ethiopia was the one bright spot in Africa, and never reachieved that glory after the League of Nations abandoned it.

"Great Britain left no great support base behind in the United States and Spain left none behind in Mexico."

I never made the assertion that "love of country" had anything to do with the success of former colonies. I never even mentioned it. I will grant that those areas that left on peaceful terms have done very well, so have some that left on contentious terms. I do not think that the discussion of trying to compare the United States and Africa is germane to this discussion. When the Europeans colonized North America, they soon outnumbered the native populations, bringing with them Europeans with European ideals. In the African colonies the Europeans were always a minority in their colonies, so they were trying to convert the natives to their way of thinking. This is a much more difficult task. I would say that Mexico and Africa are less similar than Mexico and India. In Mexico and the rest of South America the Spanish left be a learned middle class similar to what GB did in India. None of these countries have been a particularly stellar success, but they also have not been resounding failures. Even in India's darkest days of Socialism it was in much better shape than most African nations (unless you were a member of one of the lowest castes, but that is a topic for another discussion).

I did not say that Colonialism itself was a curse on Africa, more the consequences of colonialism being removed from Africa became a curse, as none of the colonies were prepared for independence. There were no bureaucracies, or a middle class, both are necessary for stable society. As I pointed out Africa was not left with any industry. Now, would they have had any of these three things had colonization not occurred? Most likely not, so I am not saying that there was a 'colonial curse'. The reason why I had mentioned the "White Man's Burden" was that at the time it was given as a reason why Africa must be colonized, and the European nations that claimed to take on that burden did so only in words not in actions. Yes, they did send some missionaries to do the Lord's work, but not much beyond that.

The beginning of wisdom for Africa and Africans is to stop looking for non-African causes for their troubles. Unfortunately, this is against the spirit of the age and the oddly coincident interests of western donors and Africa's predatory, aid-enriched elites.

I think we agree: "I did not say that Colonialism itself was a curse on Africa, more the consequences of colonialism being removed from Africa became a curse, as none of the colonies were prepared for independence."

It is useless to debate the original sins of colonialism, particularly since I don't consider it to have been "bad" in any current sense. It was simply what the more dynamic societies were capable of doing and might profit from during the age of exploration. Of course, once a colony is established getting rid of it becomes a whole 'nother problem.

What we should learn from is the global rush to end colonialism that left us with the tyrants and splintered societies that represent africa, parts of Asia, and the middle east today.

Deep in the hearts of western liberals I think we even worked to defeat potential good guys simply because they might have been linked with previous colonial powers [Ho, Nasser, Castro, Mandela, all had support within western elites.]

Simple question-
WHY is Africa so poor?
Isn't it the richest continent in terms of natural resources?
I'm SO SICK of "gimme, gimme, gimme."

Norton,
You are wise indeed, we do agree. I was not blaming colonialism, and agree with you that in a number of cases it was a very good thing, but it was the lifting of it as they did that caused more problems than it solved. Africa needs to solve its problems, and the liberals (like Geldof) only seem to be perpetuating them.

We agree. I was simply pointing out that the lifting of colonialism caused some of the current problems, problems I believe would exist if colonialism had not happened.

I am not trying to score points but want to refute a set of intellectual errors that you seem to have embraced, as I did in part for too many years.

Africa would be far worse if it had never had colonialism. The entire continent would be like Lesotho and other remote regions are today: subsistence farmers and serfs, ruled by thuggish tribal kings who live in mansions with marble floors, satellite dishes, and harems of conscripted fifteen year olds. Sub-Saharan Africa has that today, but also cities, roads, ports, mines, hospitals, stock exchanges, educational systems -- and almost all of them founded in the the colonial era.

The inescapable problem in Africa and elsewhere is that contact with developed nations disorders traditional societies. The West offers an extraordinarily attractive alternative that lays bare the isolation, poverty, ignorance, and cruelty of indigenous societies. Even simple medical care, agricultural tools, and basic education upend a premodern society within a generation. As miserable as Africa's cities are, they draw massive flows of people from the countryside. Africans are voting with their lives for more Westernization and modernity -- and they have been doing as long as they have had the chance.

As much as anthropologists might think that premodern peoples would be better off if they and their cultures were preserved through strict isolation as if they were museum exhibits, humanitarian considerations alone would forbid it and the imperatives of trade and security would soon subvert it. After a few decades of regular trade, Indians in America required a flow of metal axes, pots, fishhooks, and arrowheads in order to survive, the harder old ways having been forgotten. Africans were the same, soon requiring metal axes, machetes, hoes, and sickles to farm. With rare exceptions, most witch doctors and shamans long ago juiced up their concoctions with potent hidden doses of aspirin and antibiotics, sometimes adding ritual needle pricks like whites use.

The story is as old as the human species. People who hunted and farmed better, traded better, governed themselves better, and made things and war better than their neighbors tended to prevail by conquest and because their methods and ways were copied. But for Greek ideas, Roman government and empire, Christian conversion, the Renaissance, nationalism, revolutions, and wars, Europe would not have progressed and we would not have modern civilization. All have left ill marks upon us, but none provide us with excuses or someone to blame for our faults.

Were Africans often badly treated by Europeans? Are colonial boundaries problematic? Did colonialism often begin, proceed, and end badly? Yup -- and all beside the point because such harms and evils are always part of history. And keep in mind that Africans were and are more savage to each other than Europeans were to them. For Africans of a certain age, the era of white rule is fondly remembered as a time of peace, progress, and order. They regret its passing, not that it appeared at all.

The critique of "colonialism" that is gospel to modern intellectuals stems from Marxism's search for an excuse to explain why capitalism did not collapse in the late 19th Century as predicted. Their theory -- which quickly became part of Marxist ideology -- was that the profits from colonial exploitation allowed capitalism to survive.

Long, turgid analyses by Marxists claimed to prove this, but economists (and history) decisively refuted them. Colonialism was not a paying proposition when the costs of defense, infrastructure, and administration were reckoned against the often disappointing financial yields from colonial trade and enterprise.

Yet today the colonial "exploitation" and "harm" theories live on, providing the tenured radicals of academia, UN bureaucrats, and Africa's predatory elites and Big Men with ready arguments against the West. It is all falsehood and propaganda, generating moral vanity for the professors and cash and power for the bureaucrats and despots. But so small part of Africa's tragedy is that it cannot afford the excuses that are so abundantly offered it.