Africa solution

[Spiffor]

As to this:

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

The problem with African borders is not so much that they separate ethnical groups, or force separate ethnical groups to live together. Actually, ethnical groups in Africa aren't as numerous as one would imagine.
The idea of a country that fits an ethnical group is typically a European one, more specifically a German one (but since you're Germany's b*tch, it's normal that you can't see through this )

In places in Africa, you have political divisions within the same ethnical group, with the clan structure. Those people share the same culture, understand each other, and the relationship between each clan is supposed to follow an old historical pattern. It's not really the same as separate ethnical groups with wholly different cultures.

Now, this clanic structure exists over large territories, much larger than an African country. And at the same time, they aren't identical depending of the place. It is fundamentally a flexible structure, whereas our notion of the state is a rigid one.

The political tradition of clanic Africa is one of mixed loyalties: loyalty to the family, to the village, to the clan, to the king (when there's one). But that's no hierarchical order: people from different clans could live in the same village, territory wasn't necessarily exclusive. Again, Africa is quite big, so it ain't the same everywhere.

The European notion of state binds the territory with its resident population and its political structure. And this bondage is extreme: borders are extremely precise, and any modification in borders is a ****ing hassle.
Whereas in clanic Africa, the political structure wasn't nearly as much bound to the territory, but to the population that belongs to the group. Say, a Coulibaly chief could order around a Coulibaly underling, but not clearly a Yatabaré.

Now, I'm not saying that clanic structure would correspond to the challenges of the modern world. Just like the Holy Roman Empire couldn't correspond either. However, by imposing a paradigm of nation states, we prevented the Africans from finding their own way to do a political system that works in today's world. And their adapatation to our system is bound to take a while still (though things seem to be improving, as the west strongly pushes for good governance nowadays).

[Sava]

Originally posted by Spiffor

ANy Euro that is educated about Africa (and they are quite numerous, when you factor in Europeans of African origins) is perfectly aware of it.

The question isn't so much as to whether we raped Africa. The question is more about what we should do, and if we are supposed to carry the guilt of our ancestors.

Generally speaking, you'll find more post-colonial guilt in Europe than in the US, and you'll also find much more skepticism toward the "white man's burden" attitude, which is so prevalent in the US (with different words)

Why did you make a serious response to my troll?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Heresson


I hate self-lashing stuff like this. (sub-saharean) african mess is not european fault.
What was there before colonialism? Nothing. Colonialism left there infrastructure and patterns for development. Colonialism could have had benefitial effects on Africa, if they only were willing or able to make use of it. But they do not and it's not european fault, but theirs. It seems they are, for whatever reason, so miserable at self-gouverning they would have been better off with colonialism still going on.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
Why did you make a serious response to my troll?

I'm generally serious in Africa threads, because there are many misconceptions about Africa on 'Poly.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm generally serious in Africa threads, because there are many misconceptions about Africa on 'Poly.

I bet In still have a number of such misconceptions. Never having been there I accept that my understanding is rudimentary.

You state the historical issues with greater understanding than I have had but the question remains -- what can be done? AS I said earlier, I think that certain realities have to be acknowledged and while the current nation-states may not fit Africa that well, they are what will be there for the forseeable future. I fear that destruction fo the existing nation-states would be far more painful than operating within them


I still do not think the problems of "Africa" can be discussed as a single entity without becoming overwhelmed. I think it is more helpful to talk about single countries or groups of countries that share numerous traits

Take HIV/Aids. It may be useful to talk generally about it but I would think potential solutions may vary a lot if the country is predominatly animists or Christians or MUslims or if literacy stands at 5% or 50%.

[Sava]

The solution to most problems in the world lies in education combined with a pragmatic approach. Unfortunately too many principled idealists object to reasonable solutions on ideological grounds. I am not going to get into specifics because this is the story no matter if we are talking about Africa, the War in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Globalization... pick a topic... any topic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber
You state the historical issues with greater understanding than I have had but the question remains -- what can be done? AS I said earlier, I think that certain realities have to be acknowledged and while the current nation-states may not fit Africa that well, they are what will be there for the forseeable future. I fear that destruction fo the existing nation-states would be far more painful than operating within them


I still do not think the problems of "Africa" can be discussed as a single entity without becoming overwhelmed. I think it is more helpful to talk about single countries or groups of countries that share numerous traits

Take HIV/Aids. It may be useful to talk generally about it but I would think potential solutions may vary a lot if the country is predominatly animists or Christians or MUslims or if literacy stands at 5% or 50%.

I agree 100% with what you say. Africa is diverse. The current borders suck, but that's what we have now, and have to make do with. And the real question is about what we should do, instead of whose fault it is (I adressed this point because I took offense with what was said on the topic)

There are some things that are being done currently. They mostly work in peaceful African countries, which are the majority.

1. The promotion of good governance:
The IMF and the World Bank push for a more responsible government, and condition their financial aid to better governance. Now, I don't agree with everything they call "good governance" (which often results in thhe privatization of healthcare and education ), but there are seriously positive aspects to it.
In particular, the local administrations are now less prone to corruption. Sure, corruption remains at extremely high levels in comparison to the west, but where "good governance" has ben pushed, it is very far from the excesses of the previous African kleptocrats.
Besides, the administrative class is becoming more professional as well, and intends to have a more responsible use of public funds.

2: the promotion of civil society.
This only exists in African countries with satisfactory political freedoms, i.e not too many of them. What I could see in Mali, however, made me really enthusiastic: almost everyone with free time took part in an association of some kind, in order to promote development or social integration. There's a really big activity in this regard, and I could get a glimpse that it's similar in many other African countries.

3: transfers of capital toward Africa.
They do exist. The African diaspora sends loads of money home (by African standards). Besides, there are more western banks interested in the microcredits, i.e. very small loans granted to individual entrepreneurs (the loan is small for western standards - it's big by African standards, especially in the countryside), so that they can develop their activity or their farm.
The system is far from perfect (people can ruin themselves trying to pay back the loan, after having used the money to pay medication for a loved one or something), and the capital is very risky. More often than not, the individuals lending their money do it out of generosity rather than business-sense.

4: The fight against disease. Bill Gates end up doing more for Africa than decades of western aid, if his billions make it possible to cure AIDS. Another disease, that falls under the radar but which kills plenty as well (1 million a year IIRC), is malaria. Some western labs like the Institut Pasteur try to find a vaccine, but there isn't enough money in that. As a result, most African people can't pay the expansive daily malaria medication.


What should be done:
- An international effort to pay back Africa's debt. It's really not that terrible by western standards, but it chokes many an African country. Because of debt payments, the countries have almost no money left (I am NOT exaggerating) to pay a decent civil service and a decent military, leading to abuses at all levels of the hierarchy. Besides, these countries have almost no way to make the infrastructure investments they need to do - thus being largely dependent on foreign aid.
What is done in this regard is very insufficient. Sure, debt relief is a popular topic. But what western politicians have in mind, is to relieve Africa of its debt toward countries and international funds 'such as the IMF), whereas the large bulk of the debt comes from private lenders.
Obviously, if the western taxpayer pays off Africa's debt, we'll have to put severe conditions against them borrowing again.

- An aid that takes the form of infrastucture and tools instead of money. Western associations are trying to do this (by working on sanitation networks, providing books to budding libraries, or building wells in dry villages), but it's not nearly as strong as what a national agency for development could do. Of course, for such policies to have any effect, they should employ as much local workforce as possible when building said infrastructure.

- a very strong humanitarian aid against disease. Fully allowing Africa to make cheap ripoff medication, even of recently-patented medicine. One of the reasons why there is so little investment there, is because of constant uncertainty on life. Every day, you or your loved ones can die from a disease, and every day, you might ruin yourself to pay for a cure. These very precarious life conditions seriously discourage looking into the future. They also discourage putting all your money into a capital that you won't be able to sell in the case of an emergency. Finally, it can very much deplete the savings of those who managed to save.

- a deep reform of agrisubsidies in all countries that practice it (it's not only the French farmers - for example, Malian rice growers suffer from unfair competition from Thailand).

- more open doors for African immigration, including unskilled one. When an unskilled African leaves his village (they're often from rural areas) to go west, not only does his village have one less extra mouth to feed, but he also sends money back, that helps people live a better life and invest in the future.

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

Of course, those aren't solutions for all of Africa. They mostly apply to areas with political stability (and when you look into it, you'll notice it's a fairly big part of the continent, actually). But if we do that, we'd considerably help the continent, and it could have very positive effects on overall political stability as well.

[Kontiki]

Spiff. love your insight in this thread and others, and I hate to be a grammar nazi (well, not really), but it's expEnsive, not expAnsive. Expansive is actually a different word having totally different meanings.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If Africa really wanted to develop then they'd follow Asia's example. Fight corruption, promote trade, seek foreign investment, invest in infastructure instead of the military. Greater free trade and an end to Western farm subsidies would also help.

1. look at the asians that were firt to prosper. Japan. South Korea. Singapore. Taiwan. Generally homogeneous pops, often with major security challenges. Spending on the military is a neg, but feeling besieged, that you MUST develop, and to do so must overcome corruption, accept trade, etc, seem to help. Yeah, Malaysia and Indon are growing in recent years, but deeply influenced by their immediate neighbors, and with more issues. So that gets us back to the borders problem. Look at Ivory Coast, everyones star a few years ago, but now held back by ethnic conflict.
2. Nonetheless some african countries seem to show potential, like Ghana, Uganda, etc. Using largely the approaches you outline.
3. Yup on the free trade and subsidies.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems like the best political solution for Africa would be some sort of African Union which was a real political union.

This would be disastrous. Why do you love political union so much?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Europe constantly says, open your markets, open your markets, but so far only one side has done that

QFFalse. Europe (and the US) should stop subsidising farmers, but I hate it when protectionists in developing countries make it seem as if their countries are making all the concessions. Average tariffs are way, way higher in developing countries than in developed ones.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But indeed, let's face it, Africa has nothing culture-wise

Originally posted by Heresson
oh, You do not understand the context of the Mali remark

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson

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.

Polish adoption of christianity - circa 900 CE (or whatever) Polish industrialization circa 1900 (or so)

You willing to give the africans 1000 years to get things together enough to industrialize?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Heresson
fighting with catholic church

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
As to this:

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

The problem with African borders is not so much that they separate ethnical groups, or force separate ethnical groups to live together. Actually, ethnical groups in Africa aren't as numerous as one would imagine.
The idea of a country that fits an ethnical group is typically a European one, more specifically a German one (but since you're Germany's b*tch, it's normal that you can't see through this )

In places in Africa, you have political divisions within the same ethnical group, with the clan structure. Those people share the same culture, understand each other, and the relationship between each clan is supposed to follow an old historical pattern. It's not really the same as separate ethnical groups with wholly different cultures.

Now, this clanic structure exists over large territories, much larger than an African country. And at the same time, they aren't identical depending of the place. It is fundamentally a flexible structure, whereas our notion of the state is a rigid one.

The political tradition of clanic Africa is one of mixed loyalties: loyalty to the family, to the village, to the clan, to the king (when there's one). But that's no hierarchical order: people from different clans could live in the same village, territory wasn't necessarily exclusive. Again, Africa is quite big, so it ain't the same everywhere.

The European notion of state binds the territory with its resident population and its political structure. And this bondage is extreme: borders are extremely precise, and any modification in borders is a ****ing hassle.
Whereas in clanic Africa, the political structure wasn't nearly as much bound to the territory, but to the population that belongs to the group. Say, a Coulibaly chief could order around a Coulibaly underling, but not clearly a Yatabaré.

Now, I'm not saying that clanic structure would correspond to the challenges of the modern world. Just like the Holy Roman Empire couldn't correspond either. However, by imposing a paradigm of nation states, we prevented the Africans from finding their own way to do a political system that works in today's world. And their adapatation to our system is bound to take a while still (though things seem to be improving, as the west strongly pushes for good governance nowadays).

Im not sure. European social structure in the Middle ages was largely based on clans, with a feudal overlay (thank you French school of medieval history, esp Bloch)
That was defeated by states over the course of centuries, which states only evolved into nation states after 1750.

africa ideally WOULD have evolved that way over centuries. Instead they get exposed to modern techs, to the nation state, and to the POSSIBILITY of much higher standards of living. All of which are fantastically destabilizing. And the international system largely limits international wars, which are so useful for building national identities. And modern cultural conditions are difficult. Herreson says 1000s of ministates, if we used language to draw boundaries - well how many dialects did France have in 1400s? Even northern French was divided up into dozens of dialects, as was Provencal, not to mention Breton (thank you M Braudel) Ditto for many other parts of Europe. Now maybe the Africans would have also centralized on a standard language/dialect in each country - except they dont have to, cause the elites, and most city dwellers, learn English, French, or Portugese. Again, stopping the building of national identities.