Africa solution

[Heresson]

we need farm subsidies. Peasants living in Europe live by western standarts, which require more money. They can't live that way without artificial protection. Of course, You can have giant farms instead, but it means worse food, less wildlife, depopulation of rural areas etc.

[Kuciwalker]

spiffor
Now, exploiting a natural resource isn't too hard, once the infrastructure is in place (cocoa farms, diamond mines...).You can exploit them with untrained people relatively satisfactorily.

Not every resource. Oil, for example.

heresson
we need farm subsidies. Peasants living in Europe live by western standarts, which require more money. They can't live that way without artificial protection.

Yes they can. They can get a different job.

Of course, You can have giant farms instead, but it means worse food

Bull****.

less wildlife

Smaller farms are more efficient per acre than large ones? BS.

depopulation of rural areas etc.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Harrison: Thats bullship, if your concerned about the livelyhood of farmers subsidize their personal Incomes, not the product itself.

I agree with you that a self lashing by Europe over this issue is a waste of time and largly irrelivent. We should agree that Africa should be helped because its a wretched have-not continent and the have's are moraly obligated to help regardless of what ever happened in the past.

They need a manufacturing sector to stabalize thing first and formost, the Asian model sound good but I'm wondering who they are going to sell too, the west will buy the cheaper Asian goods and Asians generaly want to keep their imports of finished goods low. Maybe India?

[Heresson]

Yes they can. They can get a different job.

All millions of them at once?

Smaller farms are more efficient per acre than large ones? BS.

the other way round. On the boarders of traditional, small farms, there used to be belts of uncultivated land, trees etc, where different insects, birds etc could dwell. They are becoming obsolete when all this land belongs to one person (or when the farmers, as in UE, are paid for quantity of cultivated land), and the ecosystem changes drastically.

depopulation of rural areas etc.

what's good about it?

[Kuciwalker]

All millions of them at once?

It wouldn't be like that if we hadn't been coddling them. Structural unemployment is a great thing, it means we have spare labor we can put somewhere else.

the other way round. On the boarders of traditional, small farms, there used to be belts of uncultivated land, trees etc, where different insects, birds etc could dwell. They are becoming obsolete when all this land belongs to one person (or when the farmers, as in UE, are paid for quantity of cultivated land), and the ecosystem changes drastically.

With less total land used for farming. Particularly if much of it goes overseas.

And your subsidies probably go to argicorporations too. I doubt they want to miss out on feeding at the government trough.

what's good about it?

Urban economies of scale.

[Heresson]

With less total land used for farming. Particularly if much of it goes overseas.

You are aware that some species live in these particular traditional cultivation conditions only?

It wouldn't be like that if we hadn't been coddling them

I think it's more a problem of eastern Europe than western, for there are a couple more times peasants there. I am myself very displeased with that they f.e. get average emeritures, while they hardly pay any social insurances - the rest pays for it. And yet, they are not satisfied. That's extremly annoying.

[Kuciwalker]

I think it's more a problem of eastern Europe than western, for there are a couple more times peasants there.

Doesn't something like 50% of the CAP go to French farmers?

[Barnabas]

If europe subsidizes agriculture, which is what many third world countries are competitive in, then they shouldnt complain if third word countries put high import taxes on european industrial goods to help develop a national industry (which they havent since the 80´s 90´s)


What irritates so much about farm subsidies, arent so much the farm subsidies, but the hypocrisy.
Europe constantly says, open your markets, open your markets, but so far only one side has done that

[Flubber]

It seems that we are generalizing far too much here. While many African problems no doubt cross "national" biundaries (largely because those boundaries made no sense in the first place) we now have established nation-states. We can complain all we want about the boundaries of those states but really have no choice but to

1. change them-- good luck with that since you would never get agreement on who gets to decide .... let alone a set of new workable boundaries OR

2. Accept them and move on


Once you have accepted the current boundaries, you still have what seems like an unassailable problem . . How can you "fix"Africa. Its just too big a problem.

I think you shopuld think smaller and try to figure out how to fix a country or two. Look at a country like Cameroon and see what they are doing right and wrong and ditto for Gabon, Congo, Zambia. Then start tailoring solutions. If a nation has oil and the associated potential for cash, their specific problems will be different than a nation of impoverished subsistence farmers

BUt the way to tackle a HUGE problem is to break it into smaller solveable problems.

I don't know that there is much the West can do for Africa as a whole but I bet there is a whole bunch that can be done in certain nations within it

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by laurentius
As far as I understand the European colonialism has done Africa much more good than what it has destroyed. Am I wrong to think so? If so, why?

The relationship between Africa and Europe hasn't started with colonization, but with trade.

Several African countries were using a particular kind of shellfish (the Cauri) as currency. Something that is rare enough in Africa to act as currency, and which is absolutely everywhere in the maldives. When the Europeans sold Cauris in exchange of slaves, they had the double impact of creating a massive monetary crisis (because of vast excess of currency now existing in Africa), as well as creating an economic crisis.

The Arabs had been practicing a brutal slavery for ages when the Europeans started tapping the African slave market. However, there's a difference between the two: the European demand was much more intense than the Arabic one, and was less geographically localized. As a result, slavery became the leading economic activity for many tribes. It resulted in a constant state of war, of fear and unstability that didn't exist before, plus a strong hit in the workforce. Whole African economies, as well as countries, collapsed because of this.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming only the Europeans for slavery and cauri trade. The Africans (especially local leaders) have been essential in the destruction of Africa's previous structure. And it is acknowledged by the official history of some African countries (IIRC, it is Benin which has a slavery day in which it expresses the guilt of the locals - much to the dismay of many a black-pridist worldwide).
However, regardless of the part of blame in the hands of Africans, the Europeans cynically provided and maintained the stimulus that laid waste to Africa's structure. And they knew full well they were bleeding the continent.

---------------------

As to colonization.
Rememeber that the serious colonization of Africa started in the late 19th century. The settlement on African coasts (which began in the 16th century IIRC) is nothing compared to the urge of coloring the world map with as much red or blue as possible.

Sure, colonization can sound a good idea. White man's burden and all that. We built their hospitals, railways and even sometimes schools. An infrastructure that's generally still here. And sometimes (rarely, I haste to add), it's still the only infrastructure in place, decades after the independences.

However, colonization brought several big evils:

1. An economic structure based on foreign dependence. The colonist clearly intended that Africa would provide raw resources, while Europe would provide processed goods. The Africans were whipped into this economic paradigm, and the local craftsman or merchant classes were considerably weakened (especially when the trade of local resources was made by European merchants).

Today, we are still seeing this. African industry is basically non-existant. There is very little capital in African hands (while there was quite a bit of capital into Japanese hands before the Meiji revolution). The little local production of industrial goods is fully unable to compete with European and now Chinese products, because the factories/workshops are obsolete.

Also, the over-reliance on natural resources is one of the reasons for constant warfare in some areas of the continent.


2. A political structure fully unadapted to the realities of the African continent.
Our way to see a State (territory + population + one government) is not universal at all. Traditionally in Africa, the link between territory and population wasn't nearly as tight as it is currently in the west, notably because of large nomadic populations and low density of settled pop.

Besides, the politcal power was very different to 19th century Europe, and more akin to feudalism: personal loyalties to the clan, because of your birth. The clan being (literally) a very big family. However, unlike feudal Europe, many many people did belong to a clan, not only the nobility.

As a result, you have a political structure with flexible territory, and a relatively flexible clan sturucture (not that you can easily switch clans once you're born - but clans often branched off), and ergo very little centralization in the hands of bigger rulers, where they existed.

When the colonist left, the continent was left with the "civilized" notion of state. The borders not only were fully artificial (they mirrored how far the colonists from each country had gone, and the administrative districts within a colonized area), they also were carved in stone. Look at a map of Africa now, and a map of Africa right before the independences, and you won't find that many differences. Generally, when new countries were created, it was seriously bloody.

Not only did we create artificial borders, we also brought our ideas of centralization and administrative power, which were quite alien in the continent (except the north that had known Ottoman rule). Most African rulers tried to use this centralization for the benefit of their own clan, and they often seriously disfavored other clans to that effect.


3. Cultural destruction.
Tht's more relevant to the French colonization, but not exclusive to it.

With our white man's burden, we believed that the Africans were all uncivilized savages without history, without culture, and to whom we should spread our glorious civilization. And thus, we attempted to destroy local social structures (which often carried tradition and culture with oral transmission). As a result, we seriously hampered the Africans' ability to transmit their knowledge to the next generation. In Mali, for example, many, many stories and know-hows have been lost during WW1, when young adults from all castes (including the cultural caste) were sent to die in battle, thus creating a vacuum between the generation that teaches, and the generation that learns.

Today, there are still quite a few consequences of that. Many Africans don't have a strong feeling of collective identity. There's a huge feeling of inferiority toward the white man. Many countries don't have any official history that predates colonization, or even that predates the independance.



But well, yeah, we did build railroads

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The relationship between Africa and Europe hasn't started with colonization, but with trade.

Several African countries were using a particular kind of shellfish (the Cauri) as currency. Something that is rare enough in Africa to act as currency, and which is absolutely everywhere in the maldives. When the Europeans sold Cauris in exchange of slaves, they had the double impact of creating a massive monetary crisis (because of vast excess of currency now existing in Africa), as well as creating an economic crisis.

The Arabs had been practicing a brutal slavery for ages when the Europeans started tapping the African slave market. However, there's a difference between the two: the European demand was much more intense than the Arabic one, and was less geographically localized. As a result, slavery became the leading economic activity for many tribes. It resulted in a constant state of war, of fear and unstability that didn't exist before, plus a strong hit in the workforce. Whole African economies, as well as countries, collapsed because of this.

Evil Europeans buying shamelessly what Africans were offering them

However, regardless of the part of blame in the hands of Africans, the Europeans cynically provided and maintained the stimulus that laid waste to Africa's structure. And they knew full well they were bleeding the continent.

they were minding their own interest. Yes, egoistic, in our terms evil, in that time's terms kind of normal. None other would do or did anything else.

1. An economic structure based on foreign dependence. The colonist clearly intended that Africa would provide raw resources, while Europe would provide processed goods.

because before colonialism, Africa was such a great exporter of both raw materials and industrial products

(especially when the trade of local resources was made by European merchants).

the same I could accuse Jews and Armenians to having been evil, because they were taking over polish trade...
Africans weren't good traders - their fault

Today, we are still seeing this. African industry is basically non-existant.

while prior to XIX century, it used to flourish
What do You expect from Europeans? That they would come, build a fabric for Africans, educate them how to work in it, and open their markets for them?

There is very little capital in African hands (while there was quite a bit of capital into Japanese hands before the Meiji revolution).

I hardly can see any comparison between Japan and any african state

The little local production of industrial goods is fully unable to compete with European and now Chinese products, because the factories/workshops are obsolete.

Also, the over-reliance on natural resources is one of the reasons for constant warfare in some areas of the continent.

HOW is it european fault? They didn't have anything before colonisation, and after the end of it they had time to change - but they did not

2. A political structure fully unadapted to the realities of the African continent.
Our way to see a State (territory + population + one government) is not universal at all. Traditionally in Africa, the link between territory and population wasn't nearly as tight as it is currently in the west, notably because of large nomadic populations and low density of settled pop.

A political structure did not fit realities of Africa, because it was on a higher level of organisation. Do You think that without states, Africa would be any better? It wouldn't be able to do nothing without them. Statehood is necessary for progress.
Lets imagine
Today: a state controls mines. Corruption.
your ideal Africa - local tribe control mines. Other tribes attack them, slaughter them and them slaughter each other
Today: a draught. Many die. State appeals for humanitarian aid, and it comes.
your ideal Africa - a draught occurs, entire tribe dies or moves elsewhere, trigerring a conflict with some other tribe and being slaughtered

Not only did we create artificial borders,

boarders HAD to be artificial, unlike You'd like to deal with something like 10000 states in Africa. Also, even in Europe boarders were and are separating people of the same ethnicity

we also brought our ideas of centralization and administrative power

Most African rulers tried to use this centralization for the benefit of their own clan, and they often seriously disfavored other clans to that effect.

well, it's their fault that their adaptation towards necessities of modern world goes so slow.

3. Cultural destruction.
Tht's more relevant to the French colonization, but not exclusive to it.

And thus, we attempted to destroy local social structures

Perhaps the French, as usually, did some stupid things, in Morocco and Tunis they were often very cautious though.
I think the French did more harm to their own culture, fighting with catholic church, with regionalisms etc than in Africa.

In Mali, for example, many, many stories and know-hows have been lost during WW1, when young adults from all castes (including the cultural caste) were sent to die in battle, thus creating a vacuum between the generation that teaches, and the generation that learns.

wars happen everywhere

Today, there are still quite a few consequences of that. Many Africans don't have a strong feeling of collective identity.

and?

There's a huge feeling of inferiority toward the white man.

not without a reason (not when it comes to a rase itself, but culture, science, development, they do not have anything to boast with, do they)

Many countries don't have any official history that predates colonization, or even that predates the independance.

and? polish history, religion etc predating introduction of christianity is also largely lost, and yet we managed to continue our existance and create our own culture.

[Heresson]

btw, Mali would have sucked anyway

[Spiffor]

Funny, when I was in Mali, I discovered* a rich and vibrant culture, and a Weltanschauung that I find largely superior to what I've been accustomed to, in France.

But indeed, let's face it, Africa has nothing culture-wise

BTW, your ignorance of Africa is staggering. The Africans were far from "not having anything" before colonization and slavery. It is just as wrong as believing that the infrastructure built by Europeans is the only one remaining: it's false in the great majority of situations.

[Heresson]

oh, You do not understand the context of the Mali remark

I am ignorant in this matter.
Please, however, enlighten me with great accomplishements of Africans south to Kamerun -Aethiopia line (I know eastern coast would be the place where something could be going on, and there are ruins of Zimbabwe, but, still it's not enough)

the "nothing" part was about industry anyway.

[Dinner]

It seems like the best political solution for Africa would be some sort of African Union which was a real political union. The French Union in western Africa made a nice currency union but I don't believe they ever formed a free trade zone or even built much in the way of infastructure (roads or railroads) to connect the various countries. Maybe an economic union in Southern Africa centered on South Africa could get those economies moving.