For some countries (Zimbabwe, Somalia) it certainly seems so. For others I assume not. In general, are they safer, happier, and more prosperous with or without colonialism?
For some countries (Zimbabwe, Somalia) it certainly seems so. For others I assume not. In general, are they safer, happier, and more prosperous with or without colonialism?
Also, I know many negative effects of colonialism are still there today, since borders were drawn with no respect toward actual nations
They were better off with Western colonialism than with the ongoing Arabian/Muslim colonialism.
Yes
an honest question wrote:
For some countries (Zimbabwe, Somalia) it certainly seems so. For others I assume not. In general, are they safer, happier, and more prosperous with or without colonialism?
The conditions of those two countries have more to do with current economic sanctions than any past colonialism.
an honest question wrote:
Also, I know many negative effects of colonialism are still there today, since borders were drawn with no respect toward actual nations
Same is true for Europe, though.
Historically, Africa's worst dictators were puppets of the western countries.
1. Mobutu sese seko was a puppet of the United states and Belgica
2. Iddi Amin was a puppet of the British as was Obote
3. Bokassa, Boigny, Eyadema etc were puppets of the French government.
France was the worst culprit. At one point they were propping up about a dozen dictators in Africa and killing any pro-democracy leaders. The net result is that French companies made a killing because they had exclusive rights to build infrastructure in Africa and exploit mineral wealth. The french got richer and Africa poorer.
Puppetry happened because Western countries wanted to exploit the mineral resources of African countries.
Anytime there was a democratic uprising , western countries would send their goons and thugs to quell the uprising or assasinate leaders who might be forward thinking but antagonistic against western interests.
Thats why the USA sent the CIA to kill Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu who ruled Zaire for 30 years with an iron fist killing dissidents, stifling democracy and looting the treasury dry.
The USA also supported some of the most despicable terrorists. At one point Angola had the highest number of cripples in the world because the USA (specifically Ronald Reagan) used to give terrorist rebel Jonas anti-personel landmines. But instead of killing soldiers, these landmines would often kill peasant farmers trying to work their land.
So colonialism aside, I blame the western countries for the mess they created in Africa during the 1960s to the 1990s.
As for the British, if you want to see how much they kissed the azz of despotic dictators, then look at this picture
http://cdn.a24media.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/0404-1152x725_c.jpg
The above are pictures of despicable British officials bowing to the mad man of East Africa, Iddi Amin who impoverished Uganda while killing thousands. The British government helped overthrow Obote to install Iddi Amin in the mid 1970s.
Thank you for a fairly thorough answer.
Ronald Reagan absolutely adored Angolan terrorist Jonas Savimbi
See picture
https://sunnikhalid.files.wordpress.com/2003/02/savimbi-reagan.jpg
He gave Savimbi all kinds of weapons like stingers but especially landmines.
Savimbi used these weapons from the west to wage a two decade war (1977 and 1994).
During this period, basic economic activities especially farming became impossible in Angola as peasant famers were being crippled by American landmines as they tried to work the land. So if you want to understand Angolan poverty during this period then ask reagan and the US conservatives who championed savimbi's cause.
China has taken over much of Africa these days. Western companies are too scared of getting involved and called out for the rampant corruption that's everywhere in Africa. China doesn't mind the corruption but in return they actually build roads and other infrastructure. So it's a win-win situation for both China and corrupt African leaders. And it's a win-lose for the African people which after all is better than a lose-lose with Western companies. So all in all things are not so bad in these parts of Africa.
Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher absolutely liked Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe
See picture
http://zimboconnect.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BOB.v17-07.Aikman.Newscom.jpg
In 1982, Thatcher described Mugabe as friendly and honest. During this period, Mugabe was waging a war in Zimbabwe in which he killed 10,000 civilians from the Ndebele ethnic group.
So while Thatcher was praising Mugabe as a friend, she called Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
Why you ask?
Because Thatcher's husband (Dennis) had extensive business interests in South Africa which would be threatened if white minority rule ended in South Africa.
Zimbabweans have known that Mugabe is a murderous despot. But the Brits ignored it and only started to impose sanctions on Mugabde when he evicted white farmers.
Africa's worst dictator was King Leopold of Belgium, who killed millions in the Congo. The Congo would have been better off without him.
More on lady Thatcher
One day in the British parliament, a British labour MP as ked Lady Thatcher why she is so keen to prop up despotic African leaders.
Her answer: If the British were to stop propping up African dictators, many British companies would go bankrupt
This is so true. Its not just in mining and infrastructure development. At one point, the only banks operating in the former British colonies in Africa were British banks like Barclays and Standard Chartered.
I always laugh when I hear ignorant idiots like Bill O'reilly claim that the west has been helping Africa for decades.
Why would you claim you are helping when you give money to a dictator while knowing fully well that he will stash all that so called "Economic Aid" money into his bank account.
an honest question wrote:
For some countries (Zimbabwe, Somalia) it certainly seems so. For others I assume not. In general, are they safer, happier, and more prosperous with or without colonialism?
This sort of question always reminds me of one of the Monty Python movies: “...apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?â€
The poor old British Empire is always under attack by creatures from the newly independent former colonies.
Our crimes?
Well, before colonialism, the parts of Africa that we painted pink had no built environment to speak of.
Then British expertise and capital constructed the entire road and rail system from the Cape to Dar es Salaam.
We introduced education to people who had no written language, commercial agriculture to people who had not progressed to the wheel or the plough.
We brought health care and sanitation.
We developed every factory, mine, sea-port, airport, water system.
We built huge hydro-electric dams and power stations such as Kariba, created nationwide electricity grids and telephone networks.
We provided law and order, justice and security, and good governance.
Fifty years ago, it was safe to drive form Nairobi to Cape Town.
Then the blacks regained their independence - and inevitably.
The place is rapidly returning to the state we found it in.
Even in the ‘advanced’ countries, I was reading only last week:
“Only sixteen percent of blacks in the sprawling South African township of Soweto, Johannesburg, pay for their electricity, while South Africa’s electricity supply infrastructure is rapidly crumbling due to incompetent Third World management and lack of maintenance.â€
And they will run out of food soon as well as they’ve murdered about 3000 white farmers and their families - and the blacks are as competent at farming as I am understanding Euclidean geometry.
No wonder it now seems that half of black Africa has up sticks and is heading for Europe by any means possible.
I would ask someone in an African nation that was colonized.
Whatever gains Africa made through colonialism were negated by the pro-western dictators from 1960 to 1990.
The British and the French ran countries like Zimbabwe very well when those countries were part of the British empire or under white rule.
That was when the westerners considered these countries as part of their empires.
Once those countries gained independence, the USA, UK, France, Belgium, Portugal etc did everything they could to ensure that forward thinking leaders who could work for the people were eliminated and instead replaced by the worst despots who would benefit western countries.
In some cases such as Portugal in Angola and Mozambique, the colinialists (Portugal) literally sabotaged all the infrastructure they had built as a way to spite the Africans for gaining independence.
For the most part, countries that were colonized by Britain are better off today than the countries it boarders.
How long is the statute of limitations for blaming the 'colonial power' for the shit heap your country has become nowadays?
The fact that Belgium are blamed for the Rwandan genocide because they made the Tutsis and the Hutus hate each other back when they were in charge, despite the fact that they hated each other long before Belgium were around.
