To be fair, essentially every single country in Africa was under colonial rule until recently - the Brits, Portuguese, Dutch, and so on.
CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
I'm sorry but an uncredited map is no authority for a claim that "…every single country in Africa was under colonial rule until recently"
At the map's point in time Egypt was an semi-autonomous dependency of the Ottomans (who had several other African nations, also owing them allegiances), not a British colony; the independent African country of Liberia was 37 years old, and Ethiopia never surrendered its sovereignty. During the so-called 'race for Africa' in the nineteenth century it was the only African country to defeat a colonial army in the field, at the Battle of Adwa when Italy tried to take it over (a few years after your map). Although the Italians finally bested them under Mussolini, Haile Selassi carried on as a government-in-exile, exactly as invaded European governments did.
As for actual colonies, most were returned to their people over half a century ago, after about a century of European domination. Until greedy Europeans arrived there's no reason for anyone to imagine Africans (apart from the slaving colonies) weren't governing themselves as well and successfully as the constantly bickering and warring Europeans. But that's really a point for behemoth, who dragged your attention off to Africa from the Arctic.
From the Encyclopeia www.britannica.com
http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/33/105433-004-09BA5699.gif
The information is not hard to find and confirm.
If that one doesn't suit you, choose from others https://www.google.ca/search?q=afri...ICigB&biw=1920&bih=1069#imgrc=y7ULyTSXLEbZrM:
Much better, this map shows independent African countries quite clearly. I'm glad you searched the more accurate one out, and that it wasn't hard to do. Thanks
I owe you an apology for my bad habit of Posting Quick Reply, then proof-reading, editing and 'Ooops, I could say that better'. I'm sure it's very annoying, and I am sorry for that but I did it again after you clicked Reply with Quote.
Care to explain you view that the points are invalid or are you once again saying you don't need actual evidence to support your view?
To be fair, they were still a colony, just not a Western one.
And for once in this thread I agree with smallcock that a recent colonial past makes it essentially impossible to judge how successful a culture has been since colonial rule would have either destroyed, delayed, or significantly altered that culture.
p.s. There were numerous African colonial powers that were quite successful. The Zulu for example conquered a large empire and were only stopped because the Brits had guns.
Essentially all that meant was they sent some taxes to Constantinople, and could ask for military support if the small Egyptian army needed it, but the Khedives who ruled Egypt were not appointed by the Turks, and the 'native's weren't exploited by colonial plantation and mine-owners from abroad. Much more the way the the Habsburgs ran Sicily, the US ran the Phillipines (or Puerto Rico today) than how undisputed colonies like the Belgian Congo or Kenya operated.
But on the core issue, that Africa's history of being exploited makes it impossible and stupid to judge their 'population groups' by the measures that might make sense in a place like Europe I wholly agree. The real question is whether little Europe is any useful sort of general standard for comparison. Or is using it's particular history and resulting development just another example of observer's bias?
In the last throws of the Ottoman Empire that may have been the case as they struggled to hold onto power but the Ottomans implemented repeated changes of legal system and for some 300 years previous installed their own governors and military forces garrisoned Egypt and their other provinces; no difference from Western European colonies.
On that I agree with you. Africa had many very successful empires but the lack of connection with the East/West trade of the Silk Road made the development of modern industry irrelevant.
Egypt was a British "protectorate" from 1881 until Gamal Nasser took power after WW2 and provoked the Suez Crisis, which finally ended British control.
That's why Allenby advanced through Palestine from Suez in 1918 and Montgomery fought at Alamein, 80 miles west of Cairo in 1942. Egypt was Brit. The Canal was Brit. And no one fucked with either.
Well just for the sake of quibbliing, the Canal was actually French, although Brits owned most of the shares and a Protectorate, (like a Mandate, or a Dependency) was not a Colony. That's why they all had different labels (and desks and departments in Whitehall), even if the ordinary people on the ground could detect no difference. But that's always the case with the quibbles pols get us to warring over.
My issue is with the Eurocentric view that Africa was somehow a political, social economic vacuum until 'advanced' notherners got around to colonizing them for their own good/to get rich quick (that last keeps alternating depending on the mood of the times or prejudices of the speaker) Of course it wasn't. 'We' were just too bigoted and self-absorbed to care to see what they had. But unlike pols, artists and scholars actually do try to do that.
For small's map library, here's a pre-colonial one by a Swede named Nikolaj Cyon, that he chose to present with South at the top, as one might if looking at the world from that side of the Equator. Of course the 'borders' are a European concept, they weren't actually there.
And a less fanciful map that might correspond to small's 'population groups' which the European-made version of today's Africa most certainly does not reflect. 'We' sure messed the place around, but good.
There are plenty to choose from, but even to-day, us Westerners (as if Africa wasn't west of the Nearest East) leave Africa dark, so none of them can be called clear and certain.
I was just quibbling and I understood your point. The maps are very interesting.
I have been ignoring this thread for a few days. As was mentioned at the very beginning of the thread, Jared Diamond does a pretty good job of explaining why Africa didn't develop socio-politically.
I have been ignoring this thread for a few days. As was mentioned at the very beginning of the thread, Jared Diamond does a pretty good job of explaining why Africa didn't develop socio-politically.
Humans are all about quibbling, we're distinguished by our opposable digits. I certainly found Diamond's books illuminating.
If your reading list thins out, I enthusiastically recommend Charles C. Mann's two books, 1491, and 1493 about the Americas before Europeans totally changed them, and some of the less obvious but profound ways that what Columbus and his pals took from America changed the rest of the World, from Peking to Paris. They accomplish a similar sort of de-smugrifying (de-smugging?) our self-centering little European 'population group'. Mann is more a popular writer, and less scholarly than Diamond but his material is certainly well enough researched and referenced to be respectable. And he's often a real page-turner.
People practice crude forms of eugenics every day, they just don't call it by name. They marry and have kids with spouses in part due to their intelligence, personality, and physical traits that they look forward to seeing in their offspring. Nobody calls it eugenics, but it is an elementary form of it. And yes, it often a success.
Calling personal mate selection a form of scientific breeding is a bit like attaching innate 'race' weaknesses and advantages by hair texture and skin-colour don't you think?
Aren't you the guy trying to tell us such stuff is not personal prejudice?
Never mind all the folks who procreate accidentally, just because he/she said 'yes', or with people they actually do not see as 'ideal' specimens but love for other reasons.
That's why I called it an 'elementary form' of it.
Nobody here has argued "race weaknesses/advantages" by hair texture and skin color. Population differences are not merely skin deep which is something that has been repeatedly shown in this thread. You keep trying, and failing miserably, to argue against the boogeymen in your own mind. The merits of this thread are here for readers to make up their own minds without your constant tangential two-cents.
With that said, I'm off to meet with my accountant right now. He's Jewish (obviously) and the best.
