NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading the thread on South Africa's next president, and seeing what it devoloped into, I decided to create this thread where everyone can debate what they see as the fate of Africa.

To get the discussion going. Africa is a jewel with an abundant amount of resources. The problem however, is that the continent was granted independance before the people were ready or capable of governing themselves. At the time of independance the majority of Africans where uneducated and there was established national identity. (Ex. in Nigeria you didn't see yourself as Nigerian you were either Igbo or Fulani.) The only thing that united the populace was a common goal to kick the Europeans out. This problem of a lack of devolopement was further worsened in southern Africa ( Rhodesia, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Zaire) by the policy of Apartheid. This in return lessend the black population's ability to devolop into a society that at point of independance would have been fully capable of taking control of the nation. So at the time independance was granted the majority of African nations were headed by incompetant leaders, or in cases such as Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Côte d'Ivoire, the nations were run by aristocrats that main goals were to remain in power and to build a personal fortune off the nation.

There are more pros and cons and causes and effects of independant Africa Africa that I will comment on later but this should get the discussion going.

er...coming from a nation (well region-type-thing) that used to be a Roman Imperial possession I disagree

at least Africa doesn't have Vikings :eek:

Yo, Rhodesia used to be really well run. Now it obviously isn't.

Anyway, yes, it's really gone to the dogs after the Europeans have left, and anyone who says "that's because of the Europeans somehow" is trying far, far too hard not to look like they're insulting black people.

So aye, it's much shitter now than it was back in the day (huzzah huzzah).

I wouldn't say that the policy of Apartheid is directly responsible for most African leaders not being able to run their countries, I'd personally attribute it more to the fact that most of the time, the colonial powers were kicked out and replaced with the former Chiefs of Staff of whatever army who kicked them out was.

Generals might be fine at running armies, but running countries is a bit of a different matter. See Idi Amin, after all.

Yo, Rhodesia used to be really well run. Now it obviously isn't.
I wouldn't say that the policy of Apartheid is directly responsible for most African leaders...


I know Mugabe shot that nation straight to hell.

When I mentioned Apartheid I meant that it further hinderd the black South African populace.

I know Mugabe shot that nation straight to hell.
Damn right. Used to be the breadbasket of, ooh, the entirety of Africa?

Now people have to eat their pet dogs.
When I mentioned Apartheid I meant that it further hinderd the black South African populace.
Unsure on this point. Probably gives rise to less well-educated leaders, but that's really no excuse whatsover for the ANC electing the leaders that it does. But there you go.

before the people were ready or capable of governing themselves
Lol, more White Man 'born to rule' crap I suppose, it's that colonialism itself which is responsible in reality which has created Africa's dire predicament. It's easy for foreigners to talk about 'bad leadership', or 'corruption', like the white man naturally will govern better, when the fact is it's colonialist capitalism which has put Africa in this position!

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

By fucking over his own people?

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

I'm tempted to sig this.

Lol, more White Man 'born to rule' crap I suppose, it's that colonialism itself which is responsible in reality which has created Africa's dire predicament. It's easy for foreigners to talk about 'bad leadership', or 'corruption', like the white man naturally will govern better, when the fact is it's colonialist capitalism which has put Africa in this position!

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!
*sighs*

Bored of you now, EA. When you keep doing the same thing again and again, people get a bit tired of the same old puppetry.

By literally and figuratively raping and devouring his own people?
Not sure Mugabe eats people. That's Amin.

If the people weren't ready to govern themselves, if they were uneducated, it was because they were kept that way by the European powers that liked it that way. Now why in the world would they be hostile? Hmm.

The U.S. set up the nation of liberia as a colony for freed slaves so they could return to their ancestral continent. That sure worked out well.

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

By literally and figuratively raping and devouring his own people?

Seriously, bro, do you have some sort of whack Authoritarianism fetish? Just wondering.

Lol, more White Man 'born to rule' crap I suppose, it's that colonialism itself which is responsible in reality which has created Africa's dire predicament. It's easy for foreigners to talk about 'bad leadership', or 'corruption', like the white man naturally will govern better, when the fact is it's colonialist capitalism which has put Africa in this position!

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

Why oh why did you include that last part? I was even thinking about agreeing with you up to that point, but now...

Anyways, though bad leadership is to blame, colonialism is still a major factor in why Africa turned out the way it is today.

I think the blame falls more on the colonizers than anything; they went in and carved up the territory regardless of preexisting ethnic and cultural lines. This was fine as long as the imperial power retained the forces to ensure peace (just like the Soviet Union and its territories in Central Asia), but once those forces were withdrawn, it was only a matter of time before those ancient rivalries reignited and began to result in rampant violence and nepotism in government.

If the people weren't ready to govern themselves, if they were uneducated, it was because they were kept that way by the European powers that liked it that way. Now why in the world would they be hostile? Hmm.

the things is though...aren't humans pretty stupid in general?;)

the things is though...aren't humans pretty stupid in general?;)

Especially in large groups. *nod*

Especially in large groups. *nod*

we should just make the next logical step and submit ourselves to the political rule of another Earth species

rule by Cow would solve many human issues they already showed us humans that we can all get along by having black/brown and white patches living together in harmony :)

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

Yeah, sticking it to those imperialists and their tools of capitalism, food and a functioning currency! He'll show them that Zimbabwe needs neither!

Yeah, sticking it to those imperialists and their tools of capitalism, food and a functioning currency! He'll show them that Zimbabwe needs neither!

the revolution is already spreading too other parts of the world! :eek:

we should just make the next logical step and submit ourselves to the political rule of another Earth species

rule by Cow would solve many human issues they already showed us humans that we can all get along by having black/brown and white patches living together in harmony :)
It works for India!

It works for India!

for some odd reason though the cows seem to support vegetarianism :p

we should just make the next logical step and submit ourselves to the political rule of another Earth species

rule by Cow would solve many human issues they already showed us humans that we can all get along by having black/brown and white patches living together in harmony :)

Dolphins. I suspect they have a lot to share with us if we listened closer.

Dolphins. I suspect they have a lot to share with us if we listened closer.

having sex in the Caribbean all day stopping only to shoot things with sonar and tease humans is a viable form of existence?

having sex in the Caribbean all day stopping only to shoot things with sonar and tease humans is a viable form of existence?
Sounds alright to me, tbqh.

having sex in the Caribbean all day stopping only to shoot things with sonar and tease humans is a viable form of existence?

When you put it that way;

Yes! :)

I think that the whole "artificial nations" concept has a play in Africa. I mean, nowadays, secession seems to be more favored, look at Kenya or Pakistan for example. In Kenya, the entire concept of the rigged election has the Kenyan political parties are mostly based on tribal entities. In Pakistan, although many say that it is liberalism versus military. Although Islamistic, nationalistic, liberal, and militaristic forces play a role, the underlying plot is that of ethnic identities. In Pakistan, the conflict has historically been between Punjabis, who make up fifty percent of Pakistan’s population and the non-Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, and Pashtuns. You had Benazir Bhutto, a Sindh whose ethnic group made up twenty percent of Pakistan’s population, against General Pervez Musharraf, a Punjabi.

Even in the post-modern nations, wealthy, of Europe, sectionalism based on people’s oldest identities, their ethnic ones, is taking place. In the balkanized Balkans, the current conflict is over the independence of the ethnically XXXX Kosovo from the ethnically Serbian Serbia, with the expansion of the European Union and NATO fighting the Russian power bloc in the region determining the foreign affairs of the nations involved. In Belgium, the XXXX speaking Wallonia and the XXXX speaking Flanders have been contemplating separating. In the British Isles, Scottish separation is becoming seemingly more of a reality.

Why is this so? In an era of international cooperation, a nation with the population of five million, but established under a cohesive national identity is more of a reality, and can actually prosper. In the 1800s, for a nation to be powerful means having an empire, which cannot be possible without a powerful home nation. Now the receding empires of the past have exacerbated sectional divisions, and an independent Scotland can prosper with E.U. membership and participation in the world economy.

Although this only briefly mentioned Africa, this shows that the “artificial nations” created by European colonists, in short time after leaving, caused the previous ethnic divisions in Africa to become worse. Now, in the 21st century we are receding from the political debates that have previously made up the nation-state are going in favor for the oldest concept that people have united towards, their ethnicity.

Sounds alright to me, tbqh.

but its pretty much the same as being on the dole...and that children is how I solved the mystery of the name :D

I'd prefer rule by apes myself, flinging poo is awesome and its not like they would enslave us or anything

I think the blame falls more on the colonizers than anything; they went in and carved up the territory regardless of preexisting ethnic and cultural lines. This was fine as long as the imperial power retained the forces to ensure peace (just like the Soviet Union and its territories in Central Asia), but once those forces were withdrawn, it was only a matter of time before those ancient rivalries reignited and began to result in rampant violence and nepotism in government.

Just like in the Middle East.

Question: if you carve out a country with artificial, arbitrary borders that incorporate several nations/ethnicities, and make sure one of them has just enough power to lord it over the others, without having quite enough to grab on an uncontested rule, what do you get?

Answer: that's right, you get a fucking endless civil war.

The French did it, Britain did it, Holland and Belgium did it. So today we get a fuckup patchwork of dysfunctional countries that have pretty much no hope of being run properly unless the (sacrosanct and untouchable) borders are redrawn to represent more accurately the ethnic and/or religious reality of these regions. Way to go, colonialism.

Lol, more White Man ‘born to rule’ crap I suppose, it’s that colonialism itself which is responsible in reality which has created Africa’s dire predicament. It’s easy for foreigners to talk about ‘bad leadership’, or ‘corruption’, like the white man naturally will govern better, when the fact is it’s colonialist capitalism which has put Africa in this position!

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!
Apart from your last sentence, which seems to avoid reality on many different levels, I broadly agree.

Vetalia says the same sort of thing with less... rhetoric:
I think the blame falls more on the colonizers than anything; they went in and carved up the territory regardless of preexisting ethnic and cultural lines. This was fine as long as the imperial power retained the forces to ensure peace (just like the Soviet Union and its territories in Central Asia), but once those forces were withdrawn, it was only a matter of time before those ancient rivalries reignited and began to result in rampant violence and nepotism in government.
I do think that the argument that ‘people X aren’t/weren’t ready for democracy’ is baseless and paper-thin. I don’t see how one people can be any more or less ‘ready’ for self-rule.

So I think we’re agreed: carving up a land-mass for colonisation along artificial borders is A Bad Idea. Along with Africa, check out the Middle East at the moment.

Same shit went down there.

So I think we’re agreed: carving up a land-mass for colonisation along artificial borders is A Bad Idea. Along with Africa, check out the Middle East at the moment.

Same shit went down there.
Ninja'ed you, buddy.

I don’t see how one people can be any more or less ‘ready’ for self-rule.


If they are less educated or have less experience.

I was thinking little, white mice.

They get fed to the snakes a bit too often for my taste. :p

Dolphins. I suspect they have a lot to share with us if we listened closer.

I was thinking little, white mice.

Ninja’ed you, buddy.
No! Hide my shame!

If they are less educated or have less experience.
So what level of education must people have? And what experience do they need?

I don’t see how anyone in Africa would need any more ‘experience’ than someone in Britain, for example. As to education, I again can’t see what education one would need, over and above the ‘education’ one would get when one was informed that democratic elections would be held, registered to vote, etc.

It’s not as if we in the West have special ‘voting education’ days in school, or have any ‘experience’ past voting itself.

So what level of education must people have?
A bit about economics and respecting other peoples' cultures is the main thing.
And what experience do they need?
Any experience of being in a ruling clique?
I don’t see how anyone in Africa would need any more ‘experience’ than someone in Britain, for example.
Agreed, but they wouldn't get any experience in being the leaders of a proper, functioning state were it previously dominated by another ruling class. Which is where the problem really lies.
As to education, I again can’t see what education one would need, over and above the ‘education’ one would get when one was informed that democratic elections would be held, registered to vote, etc.
It helps to have a bit of background in almost every field there is if you want to rule a country. How else could you make decent decisions regarding your economy, healthcare system, military, that kind of lark?
It’s not as if we in the West have special ‘voting education’ days in school, or have any ‘experience’ past voting itself.
I'm an officer in a students' union, and have been doing that kind of thing for the last, ooh, seven or so years of my life. I'd say that that kind of experience is what's useful.

Yootopia, you seem to conveniently forget that Africa has no shortage of intellectuals, and that many africans have higher education, from studying abroad or in one of their more prestigious universities (who very often employ foreign teachers).

So, basically, no, Africa doesn't lack means to attain and nurture democracy on the intellectual front. It's the fake boundaries that divide the real nations and dilute them into artificial countries that hurts the process.

Imagine the USA of today. Now imagine it partitionned, with New England stuck in an artificial construct with Québec (the Canadian Francophone province), with the South being stuck with parts of Mexico, and with Florida and its neighbouring states stuck as a country with Haiti, Cuba, and other islands whose populations have ethnically and historically nothing to do with each other.

Think those countries would run well, without any ethnic tensions? Well, think again. Even Canada, who has had to deal with the English/French duality for a couple of centuries, still has to tiptoe and thread lightly around some issues regarding language, nations, and linguistic minorities.

Africa and the Middle East have been stuck like that for less than half a century, for the most part. Well, tell you what: there were violence and civil war threats 50 years after the annexation of Québec by the British.

So no, lack of preparation for democracy has nothing to do with it. Dysfunctional borders and boundaries have everything to do wit it.

<snip>
You misunderstand.

I’m not saying people don’t a certain level of education and experience if they wish to participate in government; that’s a separate discussion. And I’d agree with you broadly that if people wished to be in government, or to run a modern, industrialised, internationally-aware state through collective means, they’d need certain experience and education. (Though I don't see that this is lacking in the African continent)

But I’m arguing against the notion that ‘people X aren’t ready for democracy’, as is often said. The idea that, somehow, certain humans can’t handle voting or the like because they’re not ‘ready’.

Yootopia, you seem to conveniently forget that Africa has no shortage of intellectuals, and that many africans have higher education, from studying abroad or in one of their more prestigious universities (who very often employ foreign teachers).
Erm, not really. I know full well that there are Africans with degrees although "many Africans have higher education" is a slightly dubious statement. So what?

Education is useful, actual experience is far more valuable. Experience is what they're lacking.
So, basically, no, Africa doesn't lack means to attain and nurture democracy on the intellectual front.
The intellectual front of democracy is a piece of piss.

"Here, vote on such and such"
"kk"

There we go, really. I don't think that anywhere in the world lacks that.
It's the fake boundaries that divide the real nations and dilute them into artificial countries that hurts the process.
Erm, not really, no.

It's the fact that most of Africa was ruled by military juntas during the 1970s and 1980s, had a very, very short stint of being kinda-ok in the 1990s and are back to being dictatorships again.

I don't really see why that's to do with fake boundaries. The kind of people who've been leading Africa for the last 30-odd years have mostly been military men, either communist or capitalist guerrilla leaders that go on to win, and then realise that they have to run a country, and that's where it all starts going wrong.
Imagine the USA of today. Now imagine it partitionned, with New England stuck in an artificial construct with Québec (the Canadian Francophone province), with the South being stuck with parts of Mexico, and with Florida and its neighbouring states stuck as a country with Haiti, Cuba, and other islands whose populations have ethnically and historically nothing to do with each other.
That's a pretty flawed analysis.

The USA is huge. The kind of changes that we effected in Africa would be closer to sticking Maine onto New York State. Yeah, fine, you've got the odd "damn leafers" comment here and there, but as long as people aren't looking for a reason to hate each other, then things are fine.
Think those countries would run well, without any ethnic tensions?
Since I live in a country with people from around the world in it, and a prospering country at that, I don't really see why not.
Well, think again.
Nah.
Even Canada, who has had to deal with the English/French duality for a couple of centuries, still has to tiptoe and thread lightly around some issues regarding language, nations, and linguistic minorities.
Only because they're scared of upsetting anyone
Africa and the Middle East have been stuck like that for less than half a century, for the most part.
...

Aye, because before the British were there, Mesopotamia was a unified entity, and most of Africa was running fine, aye?
Well, tell you what: there were violence and civil war threats 50 years after the annexation of Québec by the British.
Me no frego and all of that. It didn't happen. And nor will it.
So no, lack of preparation for democracy has nothing to do with it. Dysfunctional borders and boundaries have everything to do wit it.
Two things here -

1. - Iraq, which is an utter mishmash, had elections which went fine, don't really see why democracy can't work anywhere else, if in a country which was getting carbombings to the tune of 50-odd dead reported a day at the time could manage it.

2. - Since when has democracy been necessary for decent rule? A benevolent, or benign, dictatorship is a perfectly alright to run a country.
I’m not saying people don’t a certain level of education and experience if they wish to participate in government; that’s a separate discussion. And I’d agree with you broadly that if people wished to be in government, or to run a modern, industrialised, internationally-aware state through collective means, they’d need certain experience and education.
Quite.
(Though I don't see that this is lacking in the African continent)
Well something must be, or it'd be a lot less crap, to be honest.
But I’m arguing against the notion that ‘people X aren’t ready for democracy’, as is often said. The idea that, somehow, certain humans can’t handle voting or the like because they’re not ‘ready’.
The voting's the easy bit, organising the voting and getting anyone with an acceptable platform to run, that's proven to be capable, is the hard part.

I do think that the argument that ‘people X aren’t/weren’t ready for democracy’ is baseless and paper-thin. I don’t see how one people can be any more or less ‘ready’ for self-rule.
I don't think it's about "the people" as much as it is about the leaders. If pretty much no one in the country's had formal schooling, then you're likely to get unqualified leaders. Similarly, if what was previously the government was a money-extracting machine for the motherland, then it's quite likely that the following generation of African leaders would have been tempted to do think that all government is a money-extracting machine. So all they did was replace the motherland with themselves.

I'm not sure whether one can talk in terms of being not at all ready, but it certainly would have helped if the colonial powers had at least paid a little attention to building proper, fair and consistent government institutions as well as the education of their subjects. But I guess that was hardly their priority.

After reading the thread on South Africa's next president, and seeing what it devoloped into, I decided to create this thread where everyone can debate what they see as the fate of Africa.

To get the discussion going. Africa is a jewel with an abundant amount of resources. The problem however, is that the continent was granted independance before the people were ready or capable of governing themselves. At the time of independance the majority of Africans where uneducated and there was established national identity. (Ex. in Nigeria you didn't see yourself as Nigerian you were either Igbo or Fulani.) The only thing that united the populace was a common goal to kick the Europeans out. This problem of a lack of devolopement was further worsened in southern Africa ( Rhodesia, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Zaire) by the policy of Apartheid. This in return lessend the black population's ability to devolop into a society that at point of independance would have been fully capable of taking control of the nation. So at the time independance was granted the majority of African nations were headed by incompetant leaders, or in cases such as Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Côte d'Ivoire, the nations were run by aristocrats that main goals were to remain in power and to build a personal fortune off the nation.

There are more pros and cons and causes and effects of independant Africa Africa that I will comment on later but this should get the discussion going.

It's not that they weren't ready. They were carved up haphazardly with no regard for them just like the Ottoman Empire. Not to mention how they were abused and raped by Europe. Not much to start success on. Africa needs a hero to show it can be done.

Africa needs a hero to show it can be done.
Problem is that anyone who looked like he could be the one turned arsehole at some point.

By the way, anyone come across any articles defending the accusedly corrupt dictators of Africa? Anything as to why they should be given aid or help? (Looking for stuff on Mugabe and Amin more specifically, although stuff on other politicians would be great)

While I personally dislike them, it would really help me out in debates if I could get something along those lines.

Well something must be, or it’d be a lot less crap, to be honest.
Obviously, taking Africa as a whole for the moment, the education system isn’t nearly as good as the one in Europe (taken as a whole) for example.

But waiting until Africa is a perfect system before its people implement democratic changes isn’t going to work.

The voting’s the easy bit, organising the voting and getting anyone with an acceptable platform to run, that’s proven to be capable, is the hard part.
I agree, it’s hard.

But this doesn’t mean Africa shouldn’t try and attempt it. Hell, there’s plenty of opposition parties in corrupt African states who have a real passion for proper democracy. And they often pay for that passion in blood.

"Hey! I've got a fantastic idea! Let's take over these lands, rich in natural resources, and rapaciously exploit those resources (which includes the original inhabitants of the lands, because hey, they might as well be useful for something)...and then, when it become less profitable, and the pressures of administration become bothersome, we'll turn over everything to the locals!"

"Oh that's a fantastic idea! We'll have already taken everything of worth (that we know of), and they can have the detrius that's left over!"

"Ah old chap, you catch my drift admirably! But you are missing a crucial point. Since all we would ever be interested in is fattening our own pockets, we will, of course, have made a complete mess of things both environmentally and politically by then. However, to avoid being held accountable for this, we will simply admit that the 'locals can govern themselves better than we', pull out, and then watch them founder as they try to fix the mess we've made."

"Oh! Jolly good! No one could climb up out of a hole like that without some major hiccups...we'll be able to maintain our superiority by looking down our noses at the locals, and knowingly comment over tea at how they are 'not ready' to govern themselves!"

"Exactly! And on the off chance that we find that there are riches we missed the first time..."

"Oh! Oh! Well we offer to 'help' the poor locals who have, all by themselves, completely independently of us, made a mess of the whole thing..."

"Right, and in we walk, invited this time, to fatten our pockets more so the whole thing can begin again! When they try to blame 'their' problems on us, we can point out how they screwed up, and how we so charitably were willing to help them anyway!"

"Genius old chap! Pure genius!"

By the way, anyone come across any articles defending the accusedly corrupt dictators of Africa? Anything as to why they should be given aid or help? (Looking for stuff on Mugabe and Amin more specifically, although stuff on other politicians would be great)
We gave Amin and Mugabe aid for about 20-odd minutes because we effected the changes that put them into power, and we thought they were on our side.

By the time that the Whisky Run had touched down and cleared out the duty-free alcohol bit of every airport in Uganda, and Mugabe opened up the national budgets, we stopped.

Because things went utterly wrong extremely quickly, and when we tried to help, this was construed as "the British are weak", which Thatcher didn't really like much, so she cut off aid funding. There we go.
While I personally dislike them, it would really help me out in debates if I could get something along those lines.
Don't start a debate from that kind of position, there's a piece of advice for you.
Obviously, taking Africa as a whole for the moment, the education system isn’t nearly as good as the one in Europe (taken as a whole) for example.
Quite.
But waiting until Africa is a perfect system before its people implement democratic changes isn’t going to work.
Africa needs stable leadership before it needs democracy, that's for sure. Or else you end up with a continent that's very UN-friendly, but that's actually not particularly decent in any way, shape or form other than "they have good elections".
I agree, it’s hard.
Just a bit.
But this doesn’t mean Africa shouldn’t try and attempt it. Hell, there’s plenty of opposition parties in corrupt African states who have a real passion for proper democracy. And they often pay for that passion in blood.
Yes, some states have attempted it, which then leads to an absolute farce.

"The votes are rigged."
"No they're not"
"RECOUNT!"
"No, too expensive"
"Fine, we'll have a protest"
"Fine, prepare to be gunned down"

Not much to start success on.


No, at the time of independance for example Ghana was a middle income nation and was a world leader in cocoa exports, Senegal was the cultural, and for a time, economic center of west Africa. These are just two examples, but in general French West Africa was for the most part successful since the French incorporated them as not colonies but as part of their country. (IE. They where represented in the French Republic by Black Africans.)

Also, for Africa to progress it cannot keep standing behind the "Europeans did it to me" saying. Did the Europeans colonize? Yes. Did good and bad come out of it? Yes. It doesn't change the fact that most African states are no where near their pre-independance levels of wealth. This victimized perona that gets pushed on the Africans will do nothing but further them from progress. Africa is a land of boundless oppurtunity and it is time that we focused on fixing the continent and not pointing fingers.

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

That might be a first. A post supporting Mugabe. Well done, that's actually quite impressive.:)

I would defer to Yootopia over Rhodesia, and everything he has ever posted suggests that Mugabe has royally buggered up perhaps the most productive state in Africa.

Where democracy is concerned, I really see little point in even attempting to establish it in the majority of African states. Once elected, every politician appears to become yet another tinpot megalomaniac pseudo-dictator, who then interferes in the electoral process. Cue civil disorder, after which another ostensibly unsullied, idealistic great white hope of democracy is elected, who then repeats the process by seeking absolute power.

Hmm, this reminds me of Nelson Mandela's book which I'm currently reading. I'm only half way through it, but the Africanist struggle is fascinating to look at from the perspective of such a man as Mandela. The way in which he stresses the importance of education and (lack of) opportunities for the black people, is quite relevant to this discussion. The lack of opportunity for, say, a black person in aparthied South Africa would indeed make it very difficult for these people to become leaders. While a privileged few were able to attend school and tertiary institutions, the vast, vast majority of people were uneducated and living in poverty. This makes these people easily persuaded and perhaps not best suited to participating in general elections. How easy is it to buy votes when everyone is so poor and living with such poverty? Without any basic education or understanding of politics, how beneficial to them would elections really be? This easily can, and probably did in some cases, lead to the best leaders maybe not being elected.

Anyway, I suggest everyone read Mandela's book to get a much better understanding of what it was really like in Africa during the 30's and beyond.

After reading the thread on South Africa's next president, and seeing what it devoloped into, I decided to create this thread where everyone can debate what they see as the fate of Africa.

To get the discussion going. Africa is a jewel with an abundant amount of resources. The problem however, is that the continent was granted independance before the people were ready or capable of governing themselves. At the time of independance the majority of Africans where uneducated and there was established national identity. (Ex. in Nigeria you didn't see yourself as Nigerian you were either Igbo or Fulani.) The only thing that united the populace was a common goal to kick the Europeans out. This problem of a lack of devolopement was further worsened in southern Africa ( Rhodesia, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Zaire) by the policy of Apartheid. This in return lessend the black population's ability to devolop into a society that at point of independance would have been fully capable of taking control of the nation. So at the time independance was granted the majority of African nations were headed by incompetant leaders, or in cases such as Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Côte d'Ivoire, the nations were run by aristocrats that main goals were to remain in power and to build a personal fortune off the nation.

There are more pros and cons and causes and effects of independant Africa Africa that I will comment on later but this should get the discussion going.

You know, the only problem with your statement is that you talk about Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa as bad things. Keep in mind that while apartheid was in place, both whites AND Africans had the highest standards of living, education, health care, and lowest crime rates of all Africa. So while apartheid in theory is disgusting, it was a "good thing" in that it did make everyone's lives better.

You know, the only problem with your statement is that you talk about Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa as bad things. Keep in mind that while apartheid was in place, both whites AND Africans had the highest standards of living, education, health care, and lowest crime rates of all Africa. So while apartheid in theory is disgusting, it was a "good thing" in that it did make everyone's lives better.


I am not saying that minority rule for a certain amount of time was bad, ( I am a strong supporter of the old Rhodesian government.), but eventualy you would have to integrate the whites and blacks into an equal society. You cannot treat a man like a second class citizen in his own country. A would be the first one to rebel if the blacks in my country (US) said that only blacks could hold government. No matter how much we did to build, devolop, and civilize the African nation we are still the immigrants there. But, yes apartheid did have its pros, it did cause more misery in the long run. Reverse discrimination against whites and white resentment for starters.

Mugabe is fighting against this economic imperialism today!

By making sure theres no economy to imperialise. Great bit of thinking on his part.

By making sure theres no economy to imperialise. Great bit of thinking on his part.

Well, the Russians did it by burning Moscow down right when Napoleon got there.

It might be stupid, but it works.

? Yes. It doesn't change the fact that most African states are no where near their pre-independance levels of wealth. .


..of which the 'natives' saw SFA, you seem to forget.

Well, the Russians did it by burning Moscow down right when Napoleon got there.

It might be stupid, but it works.

They didn't burn down all Russia though, which is really what shit for brains did. He lost his marbles at some stage, and its been down the tubes ever since.