http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1713275%2C00.html

Quote :

"Le Blanc and I are into our 500th kilometer on the river when he turns my view of modern African history on its head. "We should just give it all back to the whites," the riverboat captain says. "Even if you go 1,000 kilometers down this river, you won't see a single sign of development. When the whites left, we didn't just stay where we were. We went backwards.""

you know, i sat and thought about it for a moment. i can't really name a single part of africa that has improved since the end of colonialism there.

2/15/2008 3:35:40 PM

I can't really think of a single part of africa that improved because of colonialism.

2/15/2008 3:42:55 PM

Quote :

"you know, i sat and thought about it for a moment. i can't really name a single part of africa that has improved since the end of colonialism there."

Uh, South Africa?

2/15/2008 3:44:29 PM

while your sarcasm is genuinely appreciated, there may be some who actually take that as sincere.

2/15/2008 3:47:54 PM

Colonialism screwed up because they drew the maps arbitrarily without thinking through the more natural lines that follow along ethnic groupings. Thus, even though the continent has potential, you've got nations which are full of people too busy battling each other to gain their own tribe an advantage (or fight back injustices committed against them). The same goes for the Middle East; a nation like Iraq is a good, visible example.

I also think that is why some of the big East Asian miracles and more backward European nations are still much better than their African counterparts. You don't have the traditional ethnic conflicts disrupting the nation, so people can focus more on building the nation (or battling over ideology, but that's another story).

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 4:20 PM. Reason : Added second paragraph]

2/15/2008 4:19:32 PM

But that's part of the problem. Africa is still in tribes and other places have at least progressed to nationhood. Africa simply seems incapable of uniting at all in many places.

2/15/2008 9:00:44 PM

and all this time i thought tarheel was another word for faggot

2/15/2008 9:04:31 PM

really was Africa that much better before colonialism???? Before europe came into power they were running around chucking spears at each other and it was the native AFRICANS that sold their AFRICAN brothers into slavery.

Perhaps Jesse Jackson should petition Ghana for reparations instead of the US gov't for the enslavement of his ancestors.

Quote :

"Colonialism screwed up because they drew the maps arbitrarily without thinking through the more natural lines that follow along ethnic groupings."

you speak truth

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM. Reason : l]

2/15/2008 9:09:36 PM

Quote :

"I can't really think of a single part of africa that improved because of colonialism."

2/15/2008 9:33:01 PM

South Africa. They get to host the World Cup in 2010.

2/15/2008 9:37:58 PM

Quote :

"But that's part of the problem. Africa is still in tribes and other places have at least progressed to nationhood. Africa simply seems incapable of uniting at all in many places."

and you say that this isn't because of colonialism?????

2/16/2008 3:18:24 AM

Pretty much. Do you really think things would be different if there weren't political boundaries? I bet the same groups would still be killing each other.

2/16/2008 7:26:54 AM

Only one thing is certain and that is white men of European descent will decide what they think is best for Africans and not listen to the actual Africans.

Quote :

"I can't really think of a single part of africa that improved because of colonialism. "

vs.

Quote :

"We should just give it all back to the whites," the riverboat captain says. "Even if you go 1,000 kilometers down this river, you won't see a single sign of development. When the whites left, we didn't just stay where we were. We went backwards."""

[Edited on February 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM. Reason : sdf]

2/16/2008 11:45:44 AM

Quote :

"Pretty much. Do you really think things would be different if there weren't political boundaries? I bet the same groups would still be killing each other."

Uh, actually I'm going to say "no." Because many of these divisions were artificially enhanced by the colonial overlords - "divide and conquer." Give one group a small advantage over others to incite lasting animosity.

Put another way - weren't all those barbarians in Europe constantly bickering since the Middle Ages? Didn't they not one, but two catastrophic wars in just the last 100 years? How are they working out as neighbors now?

Colonialism created lasting damage by drawing artificial political boundaries around people they had already trained to hate one another (even more than they already did). It's almost like designing for failure. How can you create a functioning polity if you constantly have long-standing, very bitter divisions between groups of citizens?

[Edited on February 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2008 12:49:52 PM

I don't really see it that way. Aren't a lot of the wars across political borders? Wouldn't your theory mean that the worst battles would be political in-fighting in a single country? And it's not just where whites were. In Somolia, Kenya, and Ethiopia there is fighting taking place between Muslims. It just seems like these peoples have an innate ability to create turmoil in any situation. [no racist]

2/16/2008 1:22:34 PM

The worst fighting, and almost the ONLY fighting, that has taken place since the colonies began gaining independence after WW2, has been civil disorder. Since 1963 there have been well over 200 coups throughout Africa. There are a bunch of reasons that things are going this way, but here are a few of the more significant.

1) When the colonial rulers were in power, they needed assistance from the Africans to run things. What they did was to give preferential treatment to some, often times the minority groups, and then when they left, there was much resentment. This has already been mentioned so I won't get into it, but the prime example is the Hutu and Tutsi of Rwanda-Burundi. People mistakenly think the 1994 genocide was the first real incident, when in reality they had been fighting heavily and killing each other since the Belgians left in the 60s.

2) The economies of African countries were not developed. Their infrastructure was not designed to bring everyone up to a certain standard of living, and the resources they had were not developed for use by the countries. Essentially everything the Europeans wanted was exported. When they left, the economies were not developed and sustainable. A leading cause of conflict is poverty. People who are poor are angry and want something, anything, different, especially if they see a select group of people who have a lot (the ruling government). Wealthy people or people who are well off are much more likely to tolerate things because their life is relatively good. The most stable countries have been those with strong economies. Cameroon is doing well, Nigeria has constantly had problems but has begun to stabilize more since oil was discovered in the 1960s (incidentally, in the southwestern territory belonging to the Igbo, who promptly declared their independence as the Republic of Biafra and began a civil war, which they lost), and of course South Africa is the shining example. All powerful economies.

3) The majority of all rulers since independence have been military dictators. These people abuse the people and the resources are funneled to meet their needs, not the needs of the country. The way out of things is through democracy, because then the decisions made will be for the people, and the whole country will improve. The only way dictators left power was to be forced out, even when they promised reform. The first military ruler to leave power peacefully was Jerry John Rawlings from Ghana in 1992. Think about that. 1992. The only person who can force out a dictator is someone who has access to a lot of guns, and then they are usually the kind of person who will repeat the pattern. Idi Amin was the perfect example of this kind of pattern.

4) It's only been half a century. Now, there are other success stories throughout the world where countries have come alive and become powerful in shorter time spans, but often with assistance. Look back to the state of our country in the 1840s. We still had a lot of problems. 20 years later we were almost destroyed by a civil conflict. African nations are slowly getting things together, it will just take time. Democracy and equality is the most natural and beneficial solution for all, and it's just a matter of time before things naturally work themselves out that way, given the external pressures and the pressures of the successful African countries to support them. The people who are ruling these countries have no history of Western style government. The colonial powers didn't exactly train them in how to manage things and deal with issues and conflicts. The movement for Pan-Africanism was led by many of those who went to school in Europe and the United States.

Give it time. Relax.

2/16/2008 2:02:52 PM

Quote :

"People who are poor are angry and want something, anything, different, especially if they see a select group of people who have a lot (the ruling government)."

sounds like our poor people and minorities

2/16/2008 7:20:01 PM

^^

Quote :

"Look back to the state of our country in the 1840s. We still had a lot of problems. 20 years later we were almost destroyed by a civil conflict."

you can't hardly compare present day africa with the united states in even the 1840's- there is much less social structure there now.

Quote :

"The colonial powers didn't exactly train them in how to manage things and deal with issues and conflicts."

Also, you shouldn't have to be trained to handle issues and deal with conflicts if you want to rule a country, many nations have figured this out on their own.

Quote :

" The way out of things is through democracy, because then the decisions made will be for the people, and the whole country will improve."

because governments with evil men always do as the people wish and whats best for them. Perhaps we should stabilize and institute democracy there as we have iraq.

2/18/2008 9:18:09 AM

Quote :

"But that's part of the problem. Africa is still in tribes and other places have at least progressed to nationhood. Africa simply seems incapable of uniting at all in many places."

Everything is tribal. Always has been and always will be. Politics is still discussed regarding "race" with African-Americans and Hispanics.

We had a mayor election in my city last November between a white candidate and a black candidate. The white people voted for the white guy, the black people voted for the black guy. No notion of racism or prejudice was spread, that was just how it went down. If that's not tribal, what is?

2/18/2008 9:25:12 AM

people actually living in tribes and shit?

2/18/2008 9:41:41 AM

Quote :

"people actually living in tribes and shit? "

Like all the Chinatowns spread across the U.S.?

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 9:45 AM. Reason : /]

2/18/2008 9:43:31 AM

no, like people living in tribes. there are no actual tribes in the US

2/18/2008 9:53:56 AM

Quote :

"no, like people living in tribes. there are no actual tribes in the US"

A tribe to me is a bunch of people that believe for some reason that the community they belong to/live in is their representative or group and they therefore always act with that group's opinion on larger issues. These usually make up a local supermajority entirely out of context of their larger role in the country as a whole due to them most living together.

By that definition, American tribes include: Native American reservations; all the "Little" communities across the country such as "Little China" or "Chinatown", "Little Havana", "Little Vietnam" and so on and so forth; Mormons where they makeup a supermajority (Utah, southern Idaho, rural Nevada); the Irish in New England; and southern African-Americans here and there.

It's not a bunch of people in the desert living in teepees.

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : /]

2/18/2008 10:15:33 AM

Quote :

"a social division of (usually preliterate) people A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states"

That's the definition I was using anyway.

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2008 10:17:50 AM

Look at teh bright side; if NC were in Africa we would have picked up our guns and razed chapel hill to the ground by now. not to mention rape all the hotties before we leave.

2/18/2008 10:20:24 AM

Definitions of tribe on the Web:

* a social division of (usually preliterate) people
* a federation (as of American Indians)
* (biology) a taxonomic category between a genus and a subfamily
* kin: group of people related by blood or marriage


There are tribes in the US.

And jesus fucking CHRIST, Hur

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM. Reason : >.<]

2/18/2008 10:23:49 AM

I thought that it was fairly obvious which definition I was using by the context I put it in. I guess some people on this forum aren't capable of reading past a 5th grade comprehension level though.

2/18/2008 10:26:50 AM

Well you better go ahead and define what 'context' you're referring too because clearly the United States has all the definitions for the word I just posted.

2/18/2008 10:29:04 AM

Quote :

"I thought that it was fairly obvious which definition I was using by the context I put it in. I guess some people on this forum aren't capable of reading past a 5th grade comprehension level though."

It was not fairly obvious. You might've thought you were clear, but your comment meant you were using tribe in the ethnic and political sense, not in the sense of a village of huts.

Quote :

"But that's part of the problem. Africa is still in tribes and other places have at least progressed to nationhood. Africa simply seems incapable of uniting at all in many places."

You were using tribes in the sense of people identifying with their ethnic group, and that's why states in Africa have not progressed. And the phrase "tribal politics" has existed in the U.S. for a long time. Where blacks vote for blacks, Italians vote for Italians, Irish vote for Irish, etc.

2/18/2008 10:30:42 AM

Just pointing out that the US has tribes in villages and huts as well.


I mean really on a scale of 10 with 0 being absolute wrong you managed to redefine metaphysics and score -1.

2/18/2008 10:32:18 AM

Quote :

"But that's part of the problem. Africa is still in tribes and other places have at least progressed to nationhood. Africa simply seems incapable of uniting at all in many places."

That was the second reference to tribe in the thread. The first was immediately above my first post. It's quite obvious that we were talking about individual tribes in Africa that fall under the definitions I gave you.

Seriously, when you hear the word tribe, is the first thing you think of the city of Chicago or something? I mean really.

2/18/2008 10:32:52 AM

Stop being coy and just define what you're talking about.

When you say tribe, I think group of people related by blood or ethnicity.

You know, the definition of the word.

I mean, even if you meant to say "there are no African Tribes in the US" you'd still be wrong.

There's not a combination of words on the planet that could possibly make you right at this point.

2/18/2008 10:35:13 AM

Quote :

"Stop being coy and just define what you're talking about."

He already did, you ignored it.

Quote :

"Quote : "a social division of (usually preliterate) people A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states" That's the definition I was using anyway. "

-IMStoned420

2/18/2008 10:43:52 AM

Quote :

"a social division of (usually preliterate) people A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states"

Two seperate definitions. One from Princeton Dictionary, the other from Wikipedia.

Personally, when I think of the word tribe the first thing I picture is a group of less than 500 people living together in extreme poverty outside the bounds of the rest of civilization whose main goal is to simply exist through a community effort. And I don't think I'm alone here when I think of this image. The group on Survivor was a tribe. Native Americans lived in tribes. And many Africans still live in tribes. They are completely disconnected from the rest of society and simply care about themselves and their survival. That was the definition I was trying to get at and I think it's a pretty common one for the word.

Now, I have no clue what your educational background is but apparently they taught you that tribe means family, or ethnic group. I realize that there are definitions of tribe that fit what you're getting at. But honestly, I think the first thing most people think of when they hear the word tribe is a small group of people living in huts and shit and not being able to read.

2/18/2008 10:47:22 AM

Quote :

"IMStoned420: But that's part of the problem. Africa is still in tribes and other places have at least progressed to nationhood. Africa simply seems incapable of uniting at all in many places."

Quote :

"IMStoned420: Pretty much. Do you really think things would be different if there weren't political boundaries? I bet the same groups would still be killing each other."

Quote :

"IMStoned420: I don't really see it that way. Aren't a lot of the wars across political borders? Wouldn't your theory mean that the worst battles would be political in-fighting in a single country? And it's not just where whites were. In Somolia, Kenya, and Ethiopia there is fighting taking place between Muslims. It just seems like these peoples have an innate ability to create turmoil in any situation. [no racist]"

Wow, so much misinformation, if not disinformation...

And [yes racist] to that last one. It's close to impossible to use the word "innate" and not make a racist statement.

2/18/2008 10:56:15 AM

I don't really see it as misinformation. I realize that there are lots of places where my statements aren't true, but Africa is a huge continent and there are certainly lots of places where it is true.

There are many places where Africa is still in tribes (by the definitions I have used). Central Africa in particular seems to void of any major cities. The coasts seem to be the only even moderately developed places.

I fail to see how anything I said in the 2nd is untrue. There are groups killing each other in Africa. That is a statement of fact.

My third statement is also not really untrue in anyway except for the last sentence. But does it not seem that people in Africa fight a lot? Kind of like the Middle East? I realize it might not be politically correct to talk about black people killing each other, but to say brown people in the Middle East are a region that is constantly in conflict is just fine. We have to protect the black people. It's factually true that there are a lot of small-scale wars in Africa.

I understand there are regions that do not have these characteristics, but that doesn't mean that there are no regions. Everything I said can be said to be true in certain parts of Africa. Don't say it's not because you don't like what I said.

2/18/2008 11:07:02 AM

None of it is innate. It depends on the social structures involved. White Europeans used to be incredibly violent. (And I mean on a personal level. Civilized folks seem to get a pass on large-scale, well-organized violence. When we invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands, it's those brown people who're the violent ones, not us!)

2/18/2008 11:21:29 AM

Well technically I said it "seems" innate and I didn't actually say it was.

2/18/2008 11:23:34 AM

political boundaries (n) - where rival gangs of primates fought and called a draw

2/18/2008 11:30:43 AM

^^^^No, everything you said painted Africa as some scrubland of murderous savages.

You made no attempt (until now) to express the diversity of the continent or to truly understand any of the problems there.

I think it's easier for you to think of Africa that way and just write it off, and I understand the need to do that.

But you become very ugly and racist when you refuse to acknowledge the negative impact of colonialism on Africa and when you speak in such a negative tone about "tribes" as some uniquely African characteristic and cause of all the continent's struggles.

^^Yeah, you said "seems" a lot. Poor writing skills don't make you any less racist.

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM. Reason : no thing]

2/18/2008 11:37:31 AM

Citing the truth does not equal being racist Bridget. Afterall it was the tribal chiefs that were selling other blacks of the rival tribes into slavery.

Before colonialization there was NO infrastructure. The problems arose on the way Europeans bailed out of there post-war

2/18/2008 1:02:04 PM

Africa had states and organization before the Europeans took over. Medieval African kingdoms were fairly similar to what Europe had at the time.

2/18/2008 1:34:23 PM

you are talking of a couple of exceptions in a very vast continent. I mean the Native Americans had the aztecs, mayans, and incans. That did not mean that even a sizeable fraction of native americans enjoyed this kind of lifestyle.

At least we gave africans their land back and integrated them into colonial society during the time of colonization. For the most part at least in the US we just killed off the local inhabitants or forced them into reservations.

2/18/2008 3:06:14 PM

Quote :

"That did not mean that even a sizeable fraction of native americans enjoyed this kind of lifestyle."

Uh, I'm not sure that's the example you want to use. Most Amerindian population estimates give such civilizations the lion's share.

2/18/2008 3:17:04 PM

Quote :

"* a social division of (usually preliterate) people"

Anyone drive near that tribe on blount street recently? Dem fools is crazy.

2/18/2008 3:34:36 PM

^^ haha. gg.

2/18/2008 3:39:48 PM

^^

haha good going

blount street might as well be the jungles.

2/18/2008 3:54:46 PM

Quote :

"HUR: you are talking of a couple of exceptions in a very vast continent. I mean the Native Americans had the aztecs, mayans, and incans. That did not mean that even a sizeable fraction of native americans enjoyed this kind of lifestyle."

Read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and get back to me. Surprisingly enlightening book.

2/18/2008 4:09:56 PM

I'm sorry i was brainwashed by my patriotic USA #1 history books about pilgrams and indians living in harmony and white people assisting indians adapt to a non-savage life.

The killing and genocide had to be picked up with independent reserach

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 4:27 PM. Reason : l]

2/18/2008 4:26:53 PM

Quote :

"HUR: Citing the truth does not equal being racist Bridget. Afterall it was the tribal chiefs that were selling other blacks of the rival tribes into slavery. Before colonialization there was NO infrastructure. The problems arose on the way Europeans bailed out of there post-war"

Why are you talking about slavery? I didn't bring up slavery, and everybody knows that, yes, there was slavery in Africa before the Europeans came. For the most part, it was a different type of servitude, but whatever…

We can talk so much shit about what fuck-ups the French are, but when it comes to an argument about Africa, folks like IMStoned420 wanna blame everything on some dudes who live with their families in villages ("tribes"). It couldn't have anything to do with the obviously inept European powers that attempted to dominate/exploit the continent and didn't bother to fix things before running home like little bitches.

And what truth is he citing? Defend his "truths:"

Quote :

"IMStoned420: It just seems like these peoples have an innate ability to create turmoil in any situation. [no racist]"

Quote :

"IMStoned420: Do you really think things would be different if there weren't political boundaries? I bet the same groups would still be killing each other."

Quote :

"IMStoned420: Africa is still in tribes and other places have at least progressed to nationhood."

[Edited on February 18, 2008 at 5:57 PM. Reason : ?]

2/18/2008 5:44:09 PM