Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How many Cape Verdeans are in New England vs Portugal? I mentioned the Cape Verdean diaspora because I have a friend who is Kenyan. She works in the USA and sends money back Kenya. I was thinking in those terms.
Mozambique certainly has more resources and more long term potential when those resources are taken into account. Mozambique is also trying hard to curb corruption and to make things beter. With time, Mozambique can be a shining jewel of southern Africa. With that in mind, when I compared Cape Verde in Japan, I was also trying to elaborate more. Japan had alot of investment from the USA. CV needs more of the right kind of investment. However, that investment should go into building up the nation the way Japan was built up. Japan rose out of the ashes of World War II to become a major technical center, major automobile building nation, that kind of stuff. I think this could helped in concert with Mozambique. Mozambique has alot of natural resources that could be used to build up industry. If Mozambique becomes an industrial center of East Africa, and builds up its infrastructure, this could help Cape Verde as well. Cape Verde has been politically stable and a high literacy rate, and one of the highest human development indices in Africa. I think that there hasn't been more investment in Cape Verde because of its lack of natural resources.
One thing I never considered was its location. Cape Verde does have to compete with Spanish and Portuguese islands for tourism.
I wasn't trying to argue either. I was trying to brainstorm ideas for Cape Verde. Mozambique has alot of long term potential. Cape Verde has alot of short term potential. The goal is to get Cape Verde from the short term to the long term. Much of Cape Verde's economy is based on tourism, and one idea is to diversify the economy and get it beyond tourism.
That is way Guinea-Bissau has been chosen as the next narco-state. Guinea-Bissau's strategic location and its underdeveloped status has made it a target. On its own, it can't thwart the drug dealers. Economics is one reason. Much of the economy is agricultural, mainly in peanuts, cashews, and fish as exports. Any resources that could be extracted aren't invested in heavily because of the cost-benefit analysis of doing so. Years of corruption and political instability have basically destroyed its infrastructure. I don't know of a second solution for the economy. Not that many natural resources to think of outside of agriculture. Investment is needed for Guinea-Bissau.
I think to sum this all up, this is the way I see it. Cape Verde seems to be doing better from the start because it was treated better than the rest of Portugal's African colonies. Angola was used for cotton, and this is where the Portuguese Colonial War started. Mozambique grew cotton, tea, rice, and cashews, and all of it went to Portugal. Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea-Bissau were basically treated as large plantations with one port. Evidence of this is the way the railroads were built. Railroads went from the plantation to the sea, with goods bound for Lisbon, London, or wherever they were bound for. Very little of the money came back. Although they became Overseas Provinces of Portugal, under direct rule of Lisbon, they were not treated much better than other colonies in Africa. A history of a cash crop economy is what these nations got. They went through war in the 1960s and 1970s. The Portuguese Colonial War was like the Vietnam War for Portugal. The difference is that America didn't rule Vietnam. For America, is was a war against communism. For Portugal, it was a war to hold on to its colonies.
Cape Verde, on the other hand, was treated a bit better. It was closer to Portugal, geographically and relations-wise than the rest of the colonies. Cape Verde was discovered by the Portuguese and described as uninhabited. Because of the proximity to Senegal, tribes such as the Wolof or the Serer might have traveled by there. The Portuguese found the island to be uninhabited, and settled there bringing African slaves as well. There was racial mixing between the Portuguese and the Africans. Even with concepts such as Lusotropicalism, there was still a bias. Cape Verdeans, who had lighter skin, were treated better than the rest of the colonies. Cape Verde had the first school of high education. More investment went to Cape Verde than the rest of the colonies. Still, there were problems. Events such as volcanic eruptions, droughts, and even famine occurred in Cape Verde and the Portuguese government did little. One thing to remember is this. Portuguese colonial policy was kind of ambiguous. On one hand, mixing between the races was not considered a problem. On the other hand, Africans were still generally viewed as inferior, and therefore, not treated well. Basically this is how it worked. Portugal never had an official racial policy towards its colonies, but racial discrimination still existed. Cape Verde didn't have as much discrimination as other colonies did. Although the colonies would gain status as "Overseas Provinces", it was basically a ruse to have more authority over the colonies. Education of Africans was limited as well. If you were an "assimilado" or assimilated, you had marginally more privileges. Gaining assimilado status was difficult. You had to be considered Portuguese in every facet of your life, adopting Portuguese culture in every way. As time went on, the requirements for that status became harder and harder, and more costly. Assimilados were given government jobs. However, this didn't mean assimilados were treated as equals. They were not given the political equity that White Portuguese citizens were given.
In short, they were not treated well. None of the colonies were. Little investment was made to build up these places for how long they were ruled. The Portuguese government also treated its own people badly as well. Cape Verde, however, escaped war and was relatively well off from the start when independence came. Mozambique and Angola were mired in civil war, Guinea-Bissau dealt with years of corruption and coups. Another thing to think about is the sudden nature of independence. The Portuguese right-wing dictatorship literally fought tooth and nail to keep its colonies. After Salazar's death, and the 1974 coup in Portugal, the Portuguese settlers basically left overnight, as did the government. This left a vacuum for Mozambique and Angola, as both nations would be mired in proxy wars. Guinea-Bissau was ruled by a revolutionary council.
Today, investment is going towards Mozambique and Angola because they have important resources. Cape Verde is getting investment because it is a tourist destination. Guinea-Bissau is basically left out, as it didn't have much of anything anyone wanted. Cape Verde fared the best because it was treated relatively better. It had the most put into it. I suspect Guinea-Bissau was given the least development.
According to Wikipedia there are more people of Cape Verdean descent in the US than in Portugal, around 30,000 more. I'm sure that there are people that send money back, so I guess that is a source of income for CV.
I think where we split slightly is how optimistic you are for CV. I just feel like it is too small to really do all that much. It could maybe move to be tax haven for Africa, or something to that effect, but not much else. It's too small. It should never have a population of, say, 1.5 million. Way too many people on those tiny islands. CV should look to be a sort of tax-haven, peaceful paradise, not too unlike Uruguay or the Bahamas. I just can't get over how tiny it is...
From what I understand, Mozambique is more interested in being a breadbasket for the region, not its technology belt. That's more of Kenya, South Africa, and even Tanzania's game. Besides, if it were to enter that market, it would be competing with those countries, with a less populated education and poorer infrastructure. Everything would cost more than its competitors, due to the transportation cost. Also, there really isn't a base from which to have this technology. South Africa has Durban, Cape Town, etc. Kenya has its capital and Mombasa. Mozambique has Maputo, yes, but it has always been treated as a port city, and still is. I see Mozambique using agriculture for growth and trade, as opposed to soft industry like computers and such.
I agree that investment is necessary for GB, but who would ever even consider investing there? I really can't see an easy way out for that country. Drugs are the least of its problems...
As for colonialism, yes CV was treated better, but this was in part due to it being uninhabited pre-Portugal. Therefore, the country was built, allowing for more freedom in cultural change and fluidity. To compare, the Portuguese encountered N'gola in Angola, and had to counter native people there, leading to tension from the beginning. Not so with CV. CV was even going to be part of Portugal, with the same status as the Madeira and the Azores. CV resisted that.
The concept of lusotropicalism, started by the Brazilian writer Gilberto Freye, has essentially been proven to be utter BS. EVERY empire had racial mixing. It's what happens when people meet each other, no matter the race. The portuguese did this to a greater extent than the British or French Empires, for example, but this had more to do with numbers than anything. Portugal is a tiny country with a tiny population. Always has, Always will, especially when compared to its imperial competitors. The Portuguese mated with the natives because that was there way of "expanding" control. Th French had the numbers to dump man after man after woman after woman into Haiti, the DRC or Egypt, for example. Portugal had no such luxury, and therefore mated to bolster numbers. It was more out of necessity than any sort of open-mindedness, as the Portuguese were just as racist as their competition.
What would really help Guinea Bissau the most? Hopefully, not a dose of "Dutch Disease." Dutch disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - I have heard very vague rumors about some petroleum off the coast of the Bijagos Archipelago. (Similar to the rumors about such potential off the coast of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic a/k/a "Southern Morocco.")
How much does Guinea-Bissau produce in terms of natural resources?
According to Wikipedia there are more people of Cape Verdean descent in the US than in Portugal, around 30,000 more. I'm sure that there are people that send money back, so I guess that is a source of income for CV.
I took into account the USA's Cape Verdean population because I know a woman from Kenya. She came to the USA for college. After getting her degree, she started working after some time, and she sends money back to Kenya, as her way of helping Kenya.
Quote:
I think where we split slightly is how optimistic you are for CV. I just feel like it is too small to really do all that much. It could maybe move to be tax haven for Africa, or something to that effect, but not much else. It's too small. It should never have a population of, say, 1.5 million. Way too many people on those tiny islands. CV should look to be a sort of tax-haven, peaceful paradise, not too unlike Uruguay or the Bahamas. I just can't get over how tiny it is...
I know how tiny Cape Verde is. However, I look at it like this. Cape Verde cannot live off of tourism alone forever. It needs more industries to be built up. I think it could be done, taken into account one factor, people. In Japan, people are the most important resource, and much investment has gone into Japan to build up its industries. Cape Verde needs investment to start industries. Like Japan, it is resource poor. Its economy can expand, provided that it is realized that its people are an important resource. I feel that more can be invested in Cape Verde. I would say start small, and build up for the future.
Quote:
From what I understand, Mozambique is more interested in being a breadbasket for the region, not its technology belt. That's more of Kenya, South Africa, and even Tanzania's game. Besides, if it were to enter that market, it would be competing with those countries, with a less populated education and poorer infrastructure. Everything would cost more than its competitors, due to the transportation cost. Also, there really isn't a base from which to have this technology. South Africa has Durban, Cape Town, etc. Kenya has its capital and Mombasa. Mozambique has Maputo, yes, but it has always been treated as a port city, and still is. I see Mozambique using agriculture for growth and trade, as opposed to soft industry like computers and such
.
Mozambique has Maputo. And that is the main issue. So much development is concentrated on Maputo. To turn Mozambique into an economic engine for East Africa, development also has to go into more than just Maputo. Investing in other places like Beira, Nampula, and Quelimane helps as well.
And about being the breadbasket of Africa, this gave me an idea. The tractor industry is one place Mozambique can start in having a more industrial economy. It doesn't necessary have to go into high technology. However, it wouldn't hurt to do so. Biotechnology should be one place to start.
I looked on a map of Mozambique. Everything seems to shift to the ports. This is a product of colonialism. The infrastructure needs to be corrected. a rail line needs to stretch the entire coast.
Quote:
I agree that investment is necessary for GB, but who would ever even consider investing there? I really can't see an easy way out for that country. Drugs are the least of its problems...
The only people I could think of who would even remotely invest in Guinea-Bissau are people who are in food processing.
Quote:
As for colonialism, yes CV was treated better, but this was in part due to it being uninhabited pre-Portugal. Therefore, the country was built, allowing for more freedom in cultural change and fluidity. To compare, the Portuguese encountered N'gola in Angola, and had to counter native people there, leading to tension from the beginning. Not so with CV. CV was even going to be part of Portugal, with the same status as the Madeira and the Azores. CV resisted that.
That is one thing I didn't consider. CV was built, therefore being seen differently. Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau were taken away from the people living there. Even with the relatively better treatment, it wasn't much better. Cape Verde wanted more autonomous rule because of resentment towards Portugal, and a feeling of Pan-Africanism. Even if Cape Verde received relatively better treatment, Portugal did nothing to address the droughts and famine that had occurred in Cape Verde. This was part of why CV resisted.
Quote:
The concept of lusotropicalism, started by the Brazilian writer Gilberto Freye, has essentially been proven to be utter BS. EVERY empire had racial mixing. It's what happens when people meet each other, no matter the race. The portuguese did this to a greater extent than the British or French Empires, for example, but this had more to do with numbers than anything. Portugal is a tiny country with a tiny population. Always has, Always will, especially when compared to its imperial competitors. The Portuguese mated with the natives because that was there way of "expanding" control. Th French had the numbers to dump man after man after woman after woman into Haiti, the DRC or Egypt, for example. Portugal had no such luxury, and therefore mated to bolster numbers. It was more out of necessity than any sort of open-mindedness, as the Portuguese were just as racist as their competition.
Nowhere was this more apparent than Brazil. One thing about Portuguese colonialism was the masculine nature of it. There were so many single men, and with no women around other than Black slaves, many men mixed with Black women.
My point, through my long-winded response from last time, was that Portugal espoused racial-mixing in word and Lusotropicalism. However, it didn't live up to it. It was a matter of hypocrisy. There was racial mixing when the English, French, and Belgian colonized Africa. However, this is where things differed. Portuguese men were more likely to recognize the children of such unions.
Portuguese colonialism was different. Portugal boasted the most, and did the least. Angola and Mozambique were ruled by Portugal for over 500 years, and had little to show for it other than civil war. Portugal didn't have the same level of segregation as other colonial powers did. Unlike neighboring South Africa, racial segregation in Mozambique was very minimal. On the other hand, there was still racial prejudice. Racial discrimination still occurred. Portugal was not as outward about it as other empires. Blacks were still viewed as inferior. This was the difference. Racial ideologies involving the Black man being considered inferior was common among other empires. For the Portuguese rule in Africa, it openly espoused the opposite, but at the same time, didn't always live up to it. On the one hand, if you were an assimilado, you didn't have to do forced labor, you were more likely to be educated, and you were more likely to be integrated into Portuguese society. On the other hand, this had some limits. Portugal wasn't like South Africa with its expressed racial segregation aka apartheid. On the other hand, you have a point, there was still racism.
I took into account the USA's Cape Verdean population because I know a woman from Kenya. She came to the USA for college. After getting her degree, she started working after some time, and she sends money back to Kenya, as her way of helping Kenya.
I know how tiny Cape Verde is. However, I look at it like this. Cape Verde cannot live off of tourism alone forever. It needs more industries to be built up. I think it could be done, taken into account one factor, people. In Japan, people are the most important resource, and much investment has gone into Japan to build up its industries. Cape Verde needs investment to start industries. Like Japan, it is resource poor. Its economy can expand, provided that it is realized that its people are an important resource. I feel that more can be invested in Cape Verde. I would say start small, and build up for the future.
.
Mozambique has Maputo. And that is the main issue. So much development is concentrated on Maputo. To turn Mozambique into an economic engine for East Africa, development also has to go into more than just Maputo. Investing in other places like Beira, Nampula, and Quelimane helps as well.
And about being the breadbasket of Africa, this gave me an idea. The tractor industry is one place Mozambique can start in having a more industrial economy. It doesn't necessary have to go into high technology. However, it wouldn't hurt to do so. Biotechnology should be one place to start.
I looked on a map of Mozambique. Everything seems to shift to the ports. This is a product of colonialism. The infrastructure needs to be corrected. a rail line needs to stretch the entire coast.
The only people I could think of who would even remotely invest in Guinea-Bissau are people who are in food processing.
That is one thing I didn't consider. CV was built, therefore being seen differently. Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau were taken away from the people living there. Even with the relatively better treatment, it wasn't much better. Cape Verde wanted more autonomous rule because of resentment towards Portugal, and a feeling of Pan-Africanism. Even if Cape Verde received relatively better treatment, Portugal did nothing to address the droughts and famine that had occurred in Cape Verde. This was part of why CV resisted.
Nowhere was this more apparent than Brazil. One thing about Portuguese colonialism was the masculine nature of it. There were so many single men, and with no women around other than Black slaves, many men mixed with Black women.
My point, through my long-winded response from last time, was that Portugal espoused racial-mixing in word and Lusotropicalism. However, it didn't live up to it. It was a matter of hypocrisy. There was racial mixing when the English, French, and Belgian colonized Africa. However, this is where things differed. Portuguese men were more likely to recognize the children of such unions.
Portuguese colonialism was different. Portugal boasted the most, and did the least. Angola and Mozambique were ruled by Portugal for over 500 years, and had little to show for it other than civil war. Portugal didn't have the same level of segregation as other colonial powers did. Unlike neighboring South Africa, racial segregation in Mozambique was very minimal. On the other hand, there was still racial prejudice. Racial discrimination still occurred. Portugal was not as outward about it as other empires. Blacks were still viewed as inferior. This was the difference. Racial ideologies involving the Black man being considered inferior was common among other empires. For the Portuguese rule in Africa, it openly espoused the opposite, but at the same time, didn't always live up to it. On the one hand, if you were an assimilado, you didn't have to do forced labor, you were more likely to be educated, and you were more likely to be integrated into Portuguese society. On the other hand, this had some limits. Portugal wasn't like South Africa with its expressed racial segregation aka apartheid. On the other hand, you have a point, there was still racism.
But Mozambique is getting a lot of investment in the north. From its arable land up there, to the water supply in the deep interior, and the tourist industry that's (slowly) growing, the north is seeing money come in. The fundamental problem is its history of colonialism. As you said, all roads lead to Maputo, which is stupid and silly, but I believe Mozambique is trying hard to change that. Maputo is a primate city, but this only makes sense regarding its past. One thing Mozambique can do to boost investment even more up north is to move the capital, but this is no easy feat.
And as I said, I think Moz is pretty wise in focusing more on agriculture and tourism at the moment. It cannot hope to compete with the brain power that some of its neighbors can boast. Leave the pollution to them, we'll feed them. This is a very wise choice, as Africa's population is booming. Moz can catch and profit on that wave.
The Portuguese recognized their mixed offsprings because they had to. It was a wayof bolstering their numbers. If the British had as little people as Portugal had, you can be sure that they would accept their offspring too. But they didn't need to. They had enoough settlers pouring in (women as well), that they didn't need to mate with natives to conquer the land. Take Brazil, for example. cannot remember the exact phrase, but during the land grab for the interior of South America, the Portuguese had a saying that went something like, "Half a portuguese is better than a full Spaniard." That was why they mated more with the natives, it was a numbers game and that was there way of getting an upper hand. I believe I wrote something vaguely similar to this in another thread.
FOUND IT!
Right! That's what people really just don't seem to grasp with the Black experience in the US, as opposed to somewhere like Brazil.
The US only received 5% of the African Slaves during the Slave trade. The vast, VAST majority of slavs went to L America. Due to this dearth in Blacks, the American Black population is actually mulatto, especially when you consider how a paltry 500,000 Africans can balloon to a size of more than 40 million. This is an amazing feat, especially when you consider that, unlike Asians or Whites, there has traditionally never been a steady stream of Blacks coming into the country.
That growth was home-grown, not imported.
Brazil received many, many more blacks, and due to this, one can greater discern who's "black" and who isn't. This holds true especially when you consider the differences in certain rates among American slaves and Brazilian slaves. Brazilian slaves died much more quickly, had much less kids, and were treated much more callously. This was simply due to Brazil's proximity to Africa, and due to this, the fact that slaves being taken there were cheaper. American Blacks were treated better, had more children, and were more "prized." It was much more expensive of a voyage to Charleston, Virginia, than Rio de Janeiro.
This made Americans, and ironically American culture, value "Black" more than Brazil.
The expendable nature of Brazilian slave treatment, and Portugal's push to populate the HUGE land of Brazil as quickly as possible to kick out the Spaniards, made the "mulatto" more prized. He represented population growth. The US didn't have this problem. It had a problem of needing more slaves. To that end, the one-drop rule was created. It allowed a slave-owner to get his kicks for profit (the child would then be black, and thus a slave, and thus something to make profit from), while still keeping with the "Whites above all" status quo. Thus, the creation of the "Black" American was born.
Every single Black American can honestly tell you that they know they have mixed blood, but society sees them as black, because due to our slave history, we are. If we received the massive amounts of slaves that Brazil did, we would probably have just as many definitions based on color that they do. But we didn't, and yet still needed more "Blacks" to work the field.
As I said, the growth was home-grown, and not imported. Brazil's was.
FOUND IT!
Right! That's what people really just don't seem to grasp with the Black experience in the US, as opposed to somewhere like Brazil.
The US only received 5% of the African Slaves during the Slave trade. The vast, VAST majority of slavs went to L America. Due to this dearth in Blacks, the American Black population is actually mulatto, especially when you consider how a paltry 500,000 Africans can balloon to a size of more than 40 million. This is an amazing feat, especially when you consider that, unlike Asians or Whites, there has traditionally never been a steady stream of Blacks coming into the country.
That growth was home-grown, not imported.
Brazil received many, many more blacks, and due to this, one can greater discern who's "black" and who isn't. This holds true especially when you consider the differences in certain rates among American slaves and Brazilian slaves. Brazilian slaves died much more quickly, had much less kids, and were treated much more callously. This was simply due to Brazil's proximity to Africa, and due to this, the fact that slaves being taken there were cheaper. American Blacks were treated better, had more children, and were more "prized." It was much more expensive of a voyage to Charleston, Virginia, than Rio de Janeiro.
This made Americans, and ironically American culture, value "Black" more than Brazil.
The expendable nature of Brazilian slave treatment, and Portugal's push to populate the HUGE land of Brazil as quickly as possible to kick out the Spaniards, made the "mulatto" more prized. He represented population growth. The US didn't have this problem. It had a problem of needing more slaves. To that end, the one-drop rule was created. It allowed a slave-owner to get his kicks for profit (the child would then be black, and thus a slave, and thus something to make profit from), while still keeping with the "Whites above all" status quo. Thus, the creation of the "Black" American was born.
Every single Black American can honestly tell you that they know they have mixed blood, but society sees them as black, because due to our slave history, we are. If we received the massive amounts of slaves that Brazil did, we would probably have just as many definitions based on color that they do. But we didn't, and yet still needed more "Blacks" to work the field.
As I said, the growth was home-grown, and not imported. Brazil's was.
Some of this I can believe, such as slavery in Brazil being more callous and brutal. What I don't believe is how the one drop rule was invented. The one drop rule was not made official until AFTER slavery ended, and it was made to keep Blacks out of White society. I don't think American culture really valued "Black" any better than Brazil did.
So, I can find it believable that the Portuguese were willing to expand, and for this reason, willing to incorporate mixed race offspring.
Some of this I can believe, such as slavery in Brazil being more callous and brutal. What I don't believe is how the one drop rule was invented. The one drop rule was not made official until AFTER slavery ended, and it was made to keep Blacks out of White society. I don't think American culture really valued "Black" any better than Brazil did.
So, I can find it believable that the Portuguese were willing to expand, and for this reason, willing to incorporate mixed race offspring.
When I use the word "value,"I do not mean to praise, I mean it in the sense of comparison. There was less of a praise for the mulatto in the US, as opposed to Brazil, which still obsesses over that. The US instead "valued" strong bucks, for instance. The large, strong black man that can work the field from sun-up to sun-down.
And even if the one-drop rule was not initiated till after slavery in the US, the fact that it was allowed to take root and be accepted by the populace so strongly that we STILL follow the rule, speaks volumes for the United States. Such a rule would not have been able to take root and grow the way it did in Brazil. It wouldn't make sense in a culture of brazen "embranqueamento" (whitening). The reason the ODR was thought and fortified in the States was wholly due to American culture.
But back on topic, GB is a lost cause, at least for now. The best hope that Luso-Africa has for continued growth is the continuity of the Angolan boom and Mozambique to continue growing steadily and shrewdly.
When I use the word "value,"I do not mean to praise, I mean it in the sense of comparison. There was less of a praise for the mulatto in the US, as opposed to Brazil, which still obsesses over that. The US instead "valued" strong bucks, for instance. The large, strong black man that can work the field from sun-up to sun-down.
And even if the one-drop rule was not initiated till after slavery in the US, the fact that it was allowed to take root and be accepted by the populace so strongly that we STILL follow the rule, speaks volumes for the United States. Such a rule would not have been able to take root and grow the way it did in Brazil. It wouldn't make sense in a culture of brazen "embranqueamento" (whitening). The reason the ODR was thought and fortified in the States was wholly due to American culture.
But back on topic, GB is a lost cause, at least for now. The best hope that Luso-Africa has for continued growth is the continuity of the Angolan boom and Mozambique to continue growing steadily and shrewdly.
In short, Black in America was seen as nothing more than for work.
I don't know much else to do for GB. I do see Mozambique having a bright future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
