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.
I was in most countries in Africa in the 1970's, barely a decade after independence for some of them, and my impression is that there was not a great deal of difference in the African's lives from the 50's to the 70's. In many cases, Europeans remained behind, continuing to administer many of the commercial activities, leaving only government offices to be filled by black replacements. The roads and railways they had for their use were already in place in the colonial days, presumably carrying similar kinds of traffic.
In Nouakchott, Mauritanina, in 1971, it was basicly a bush town, with few of the kinds of buildings one would associate with a capital. there were virtually no private cars. It appeared that somebody had shipped in a few dozen Renault 4's to be used as taxis, and recruited a suitable number of drivers who indicated that they thought to could learn to drive the machines, and did so mostly through trial and error.
The roads in Rwanda were a continuous line of pedestrians, miles from the nearst town, apparently spending much of their day walking for hours to or from some marketplace. I doubt if that was something new that emerged since independence. There were many Europeans in the '70's living well in Bujumburi, Burindi, who spoke of "the native quarter"---the part of the city occupied by blacks, where the streets were mud and there was no electricity or running water. Again, probably very similar to precolonial Bujumburi.
In Mozambique, the Portuguese had left so recently that currency of all the former portuguese colonies circulated interchangeably between the various countries, and your change might just as well have been from Cape Verde or Angola. . The town I saw had almost no structures on permanent foundations, and was under the direct control of the revolutionary army. Who essentially ignored it, and had no clue what they were doing there, except for patrolling checkpoints entering and leaving the town. It didn't look like many people had jobs to do, but somehow, they had economic resources and were not in abject poverty or hopelessness. Their diet was exceptionally spare, with almost no variety.
Tananarive, Madagascar, was obviously a very old and very large town, with long established housing for many times the number of French who could have possibly lived there. So I conclude that it had for many decades been a place where Malagasies had been living an urban life, with some kinds of urban amenities.
In the 70's, the merchant class of Africa was nearly all Indians, some Lebanese, and some Europeans, although a few countries (like Uganda) had forcibly evicted them all. Small shops would be African, but any shop that sold imported or manufactured goods was generally white-owned. Guinea expelled every single non-black except the German brewmaster at the brewery, and let none in even as visitors.
Assuming that Africa did not change oversuddenly in the decade of independence, I would have to judge that in the 1950s, there was a decent transportation network, and the Africans in colonial times had made good personal use of it, with plenty of thriving settlements along the roads. There were always inexplicably large hordes of people moving about on crowded trains and busses. There was money in circulation, people had plenty of it. Towns did not leave the impression of having spring up out of nowhere in a decade. It seemed that the Africans had been pretty much a part of a free economy for quite a long time.
I was in most countries in Africa in the 1970's, barely a decade after independence for some of them, and my impression is that there was not a great deal of difference in the African's lives from the 50's to the 70's. In many cases, Europeans remained behind, continuing to administer many of the commercial activities, leaving only government offices to be filled by black replacements. The roads and railways they had for their use were already in place in the colonial days, presumably carrying similar kinds of traffic.
In Nouakchott, Mauritanina, in 1971, it was basicly a bush town, with few of the kinds of buildings one would associate with a capital. there were virtually no private cars. It appeared that somebody had shipped in a few dozen Renault 4's to be used as taxis, and recruited a suitable number of drivers who indicated that they thought to could learn to drive the machines, and did so mostly through trial and error.
The roads in Rwanda were a continuous line of pedestrians, miles from the nearst town, apparently spending much of their day walking for hours to or from some marketplace. I doubt if that was something new that emerged since independence. There were many Europeans in the '70's living well in Bujumburi, Burindi, who spoke of "the native quarter"---the part of the city occupied by blacks, where the streets were mud and there was no electricity or running water. Again, probably very similar to precolonial Bujumburi.
In Mozambique, the Portuguese had left so recently that currency of all the former portuguese colonies circulated interchangeably between the various countries, and your change might just as well have been from Cape Verde or Angola. . The town I saw had almost no structures on permanent foundations, and was under the direct control of the revolutionary army. Who essentially ignored it, and had no clue what they were doing there, except for patrolling checkpoints entering and leaving the town. It didn't look like many people had jobs to do, but somehow, they had economic resources and were not in abject poverty or hopelessness. Their diet was exceptionally spare, with almost no variety.
Tananarive, Madagascar, was obviously a very old and very large town, with long established housing for many times the number of French who could have possibly lived there. So I conclude that it had for many decades been a place where Malagasies had been living an urban life, with some kinds of urban amenities.
In the 70's, the merchant class of Africa was nearly all Indians, some Lebanese, and some Europeans, although a few countries (like Uganda) had forcibly evicted them all. Small shops would be African, but any shop that sold imported or manufactured goods was generally white-owned. Guinea expelled every single non-black except the German brewmaster at the brewery, and let none in even as visitors.
Assuming that Africa did not change oversuddenly in the decade of independence, I would have to judge that in the 1950s, there was a decent transportation network, and the Africans in colonial times had made good personal use of it, with plenty of thriving settlements along the roads. There were always inexplicably large hordes of people moving about on crowded trains and busses. There was money in circulation, people had plenty of it. Towns did not leave the impression of having spring up out of nowhere in a decade. It seemed that the Africans had been pretty much a part of a free economy for quite a long time.
What a great post.
I think it is safe to say that Africans inherited some infrastructure and a lot of great natural resources. What happened?
Japan had no natural resources and a completely destroyed infrastructure after WWII. Yet in 10 years they were back on the road to becoming a superpower.
I think it is safe to say that Africans inherited some infrastructure and a lot of great natural resources. What happened?
Japan had no natural resources and a completely destroyed infrastructure after WWII. Yet in 10 years they were back on the road to becoming a superpower.
Mr.wruckman basically gave the best and fairest description of what happened in africa. My country only became decolonized in the mid 1960s. or should I say that is when we formally won independce. Most african countries had to focus all their reources for anywhere from a 100-10 year period depending on the nation to over throw the colonialist powers. Some took even longer like Angola or Mozambique who only got independce in 1975.
Also realize that most the genocides happened with european support. a Rwanda court has indicted and asked france to send over some former french presidents for supporting hutu militias but france like all western nations doesn''t play fair even though there is evidence that France trained them.
Look at a country like the DRC. sure you might say lots of resources why can't they export and be rich. Well Look at how belgium left the country. They ran the country like Kim Jong Ill runs north korea today. Strict authoritarian rule, slave labour camps with millions inside. sure kim jong ill builds some infastruture. Just like the belgians builded some infastrsucture, but most of the infastructure was built for their benefit and use alone. So ya the builded a railroad, but to transport rubber that they forced women and children to get or else the would cut of their arms and legs. There is an entire generation of arm and legless people in the congo.
dont overlook the lumping of random countries together. Imagine stickingGermany in 1939 in the same country as England and russia and poland. You would have civil war the seond you pull out.
Also realize that the borders on africa are completely arbitrary. They do not resemble historical ethnic groups, regions or countries except for ethiopia and liberia who were not colonoized. Most countries have ethnic groups that have historically opposed or fought wars and when europeans would leave they would have a favoured group who they left in power which one can see how it easily leads to war. USA gave japan the equivalent 400 billion dollars for 10 years in a row and the same goes to german and italy. 1/3 of the japanese gdp was american aid. America give out 23 billion dollars a year in total right now, japan got that same amountin 1950, account for 6% inflation. Africa has got nothing, or a proverbial drop in the bucket when it comes to aid. Noreal development programs.
Japan got money to build skyscrappers, 400 billion is lots of money, 40 million in a nation of 10 million is nothing.
I can tell you that at the end of colonialism it was an unstable place in africa. The GDP went down right away because all the whites, who had the know how, left. In most places in africa whites did not want blacks in school because the never wanted them to get too smart. Kinda like slavery. If you lived in a rural place in africa there likely was not even a school. As for the indians, lots of them are poor too, some are merchants and are succesful but many left too which never helped. In essence, what happened is all the skilled people prevented the africans from learning skills because they wanted to keep out the comptetion, as a result, when the white left, you had a country of largely unskilled people.
The few africans who did have degree left for europe and america as they could not make no money in africa anyways because it was illegal for a black man to be a merchant or run a business or trvael in many place in his own country,
also cuba, realize that the problem sof genocide today were still happening back then the only difference it was beong done by british soldiers who wrote a rosy picture for people overseas that was untrue. The majority of black people were worse then than after, the only difference is that there was no pony show. If you had went to South africa as a white, you would not have been taken by the army to the "dangerous" black area, you would have been taken to the nice white area.
I believe that in the europe people were told things that were untrue of africa like it is so great the work we are doing. I'm sure they did not say we are raping little girls and chopping o feets and hands like leopold instructed soldirs to do which is evident in the above links.
Realize that slavery is outlawed and the methods that europeans used were to enslave millions shoot the dissenters and get money out of the resources they produced. No free person would live that way.
It is true there was slavery ina frica before the portugese came, there but this was slavery no different practiced in the rest of the world. Realize that Mali was the world power and centre of the economic and scientific world before europeans rose to power starting in the 1600s. Thats where the phrase from here to timbuktoo comes from.
The slavery practiced by jews, arab, africans, native americans, and even romans when the empire still existed meant that you would show up and do free labour more like we would call volunteering or mandatory community service today. This was usually done to prisoners of war, people who owed debts or commited minor crimes like theft of minor things. You had no right to chop of the hand/limbs, rape, murder, kill, or otherwise torture a slave. You also did not own the person, they just owed you labour and sometimes it could be sexual if you were a woman or a child.
Say I lend you $10 in ancient rome, you cant pay me back because you lost your job, ok you are my slave until i get 10 bucks of work fromyou. I couldn't do the evil things that went on in new slavery or I'd go straight to prison.
Also when you look at country like south africa whwere 80% of the population is locked out from owning 95% of the land, its no wonder they are going backwards until recently.
I can tell yuou that life today in africa is better than it was under colonialism.
Even under colonialism cities like Lagos, Luanda,douala,abidjan and dakar, and even algeries all today rival european cities in their modernity and so expense and wages and so on. I think your view of africa is a little old, things have changed alot. Luanda is no different than any european city. I could show you pictures acra in ghana that you thinkw as america and is the rule not the exception in thatcity. I can say that a city like Luanda is more advanced than any city in portugal or brazil
The difference between post colonial Asia and Africa is a difference in culture.
1) Korea, Japan, etc. are relatively ethnically uniform, with leadership accepted by the population. In contrast Africa's borders were carved by colonial powers according to their interests. Frequently, African countries include hostile ethic groups who cannot live together. The state leadership isn't accepted by large parts of the population. In Africa the citizens loyalty goes to the tribe or clan but not to the state.
2) Asian culture emphasizes discipline, family and tradition. Africans are not educated with the same goals. (American and Western European cultures also lack the Asian discipline and today family has lost much of its past meaning).
I would not really agree your trying to elevate asians to a mythical state. Its not real what you are portraying. Korea and Japan are more like Iraq, but countries that quickly embraced american money rather than waste it. I guess they are more disciplined in that regard, but no african country has been a signfican receipant of aid from usa or europe.
-Japan got 4 trillion dollars over 10 years to rebuild after ww2, when this money shut off, look what happened, by 1970 japanese growth fell from its high rate because they could not spend without limit because america reduced aid, by 1980 japanese growth stopped and became around 2-5% and by 1990 they went into financial crisis because america was not shipping boats of money to them anymore.
-Exact sane thing with South Korea, south korea got billions of dollars in aid to develop so as they could fight off the north and the communist, America needed to build allies in the region so sending boats of money made political sense. such a thing has not occured in africa yet.
-USA spends $600-700 billion building Iraq no place in africa gets this kind of money. all of africa as a contient has gotten less aid than korea, a small country the size of ghana.
I'm not saying asians cultures don;t have good qualities that canot be learned they do. They work hard when they suck at things so they many seem intelligent even when they are not. I know a chinese guy dumb as door nail can never get more than a c+ yet he works harder than his white o****er parts to imrpove his c+.
-Africans have plenty of discipline and work plenty hard they have not gotten the western laziness, there have been not one country to put forth a real investment plan to any african country in the 100s of billion of dollars like Iraq, israel, korea, japan, and other countries of the like has got. Countries in south america are in teh same boat as africa, westerns have not found it a location worth investing billions in so they didn't. Japan declared war on USA and got invaded and rebuilded so communist did not take it, south korea got builded so commies wouldn't take it. iraq got rebuilded and so is afghanistan now being buileded. there are sky scrapers of glass in afghanistan now that did not exist even 10 years ago. Africa has not been so lucky and neith has south america
-korea
The difference between post colonial Asia and Africa is a difference in culture.
1) Korea, Japan, etc. are relatively ethnically uniform, with leadership accepted by the population. In contrast Africa's borders were carved by colonial powers according to their interests. Frequently, African countries include hostile ethic groups who cannot live together. The state leadership isn't accepted by large parts of the population. In Africa the citizens loyalty goes to the tribe or clan but not to the state.
2) Asian culture emphasizes discipline, family and tradition. Africans are not educated with the same goals. (American and Western European cultures also lack the Asian discipline and today family has lost much of its past meaning).
There is a song by Jaluka a mixed white-black band from South Africa called "Scatterings of Africa" points out that all huminity has its origin in Africa and that we we left the African cradle in relatively recent times (roughly 70,000 years ago) as far as geology is concerned. Africa can be credited with the rise of the first state that extended beyond the city or clan level (Old Kingdom Egypt), Africa was one of the first to see the creation of a monothesistic religion based on Aton the sun god. Africans were the first to make and work iron as a metal. This not only required learning how to make a furnace hot enough, but also involved learning how to control impurities in the metal and how to work or forge the metal to make it ductile rather than brittle. Knowledge of Iron working came from Kush (present day Sudan) and was adopted by the bronze-age cultures in the Middle East. The Egyptians were the first to make glass and invented surveying.
There is a song by Jaluka a mixed white-black band from South Africa called "Scatterings of Africa" points out that all huminity has its origin in Africa and that we we left the African cradle in relatively recent times (roughly 70,000 years ago) as far as geology is concerned. Africa can be credited with the rise of the first state that extended beyond the city or clan level (Old Kingdom Egypt), Africa was one of the first to see the creation of a monothesistic religion based on Aton the sun god. Africans were the first to make and work iron as a metal. This not only required learning how to make a furnace hot enough, but also involved learning how to control impurities in the metal and how to work or forge the metal to make it ductile rather than brittle. Knowledge of Iron working came from Kush (present day Sudan) and was adopted by the bronze-age cultures in the Middle East. The Egyptians were the first to make glass and invented surveying.
That may be correct (at least in part) yet absolutely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
The OP asked to compare life in Africa before and after colonialism. Later, someone made a comparison to Asian countries that were also colonializied during the 19th century and I tried to answer the best I could. I am sorry if you were offended, I had no such intention.
The problem is that after independence too many new African gov'ts chosed the wrong economic and political approaches. Too many chosed some form of socialism and one-party states. These two things combined were bad for new developing countries.
Until more Africans liberalize their economies and adopt some form of democracy influenced by their traditional governing systems like Botswana did then we will see more progress for the continent. Nationalizing your economy doesn't work.
The Luba empire's expansion was due to its development of a form of government that was durable enough to withstand the disruptions of succession disputes and flexible enough to incorporate foreign leaders and governments. Based on twin principles of sacred kingship (balopwe) and rule by council, the Luba model of statecraft was adopted by the Lunda and spread throughout the region that is today northern Angola, northwestern Zambia, and southern Democratic Republic of Congo.
I've heard it pointed out that one way for African countries to work politically is for more of them to adapt or modernize their traditional systems of governance for their countries. Botswana was one of the few post colonial countries that used it's indigenous system as an influence. Maybe if more countries could adapt or modernize that Luba approach for their current countries then maybe we would see more stability in Africa?
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.
