Europe and Africa

[politicus]

Africans often blame European colonization for all the troubles of modern Africa. But it is hard to see how tribal African societies could have evolved and modernized without European or other foreign rule.

Colonization undermined the social structures of traditional African society and created artificial borders with old enemies sharing the same state, that led to countless wars and conflicts in modern Africa. But it also stopped the Arab/Moslem slave trade that was depopulating large parts of Central Africa, provided security for merchants which stimulated trade and provided the continent with basic infrastructure plus territorial units big enough to form the basis of modern states.

Would you say that European colonization (the actual conquest and occupation of the continent after 1880, not the coastal forts used for the transatlantic slave trade) was all in all mostly beneficial or harmful to Africans?

[Χahar]

But it also stopped the Arab/Moslem slave trade that was depopulating large parts of Central Africa

That's certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

[Californian Tony]

If it has ever done any good it remains to be demonstrated. The bad it has caused is blatant.

[Senator Clarence]

It caused issues... but a lot of the folks in charge now seem to be even worse for the people there. Hell- the people Mugabe rules probably still wish they were from Rhodesia!

[Redalgo]

Mostly harmful, in my opinion.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Africa was hardly an unchanged society in the 1870s, by then contact with the Europeans (and I don't just mean the Slave Trade here) had changed the nature of the continent drastically. There is no reason to think that had Europe 'left it alone'*, it would at all like it did in 1870 now (of course, in this alternative timeline, it would look even less like it does in RL, for a start there would be millions of people who we call "Sudanese", "Congolese", "Gabonese", "Namibian" living than is currently the case).

* (Of course, what do you mean by that?)

[politicus]

Africa was hardly an unchanged society in the 1870s, by then contact with the Europeans (and I don't just mean the Slave Trade here) had changed the nature of the continent drastically. There is no reason to think that had Europe 'left it alone'*, it would at all like it did in 1870.

* (Of course, what do you mean by that?)

Who said anything about "it would look like 1870"? It obviously would not. The interesting thing is how the continent would have developed without conquest and colonization. No one is making a case for total isolation, that would be ludicrous.

Left it alone= not colonized it

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Africa was hardly an unchanged society in the 1870s, by then contact with the Europeans (and I don't just mean the Slave Trade here) had changed the nature of the continent drastically. There is no reason to think that had Europe 'left it alone'*, it would at all like it did in 1870.

* (Of course, what do you mean by that?)

Who said anything about "it would look like 1870"? It obviously would not. The interesting thing is how the continent would have developed without conquest and colonization. No one is making a case for total isolation, that would be ludicrous.

Left it alone= not colonized it

The point was partly to pre-empt the common notions of pre-colonial Africa. Of course by 1870 there was British Cape Colony (whose white population was of majority Dutch descent and had moved much further into interior), French Algeria and all those coastal forts that had been left behind from the days of the slave trade which nobody was quite sure what to do with. Also strong (and by then a few centuries old in places) Portuguese presence in certain parts. Though at this place the Congo "Free State" was still a notion in a megalo-and-mono-maniacs perverse ramblings, taken seriously by none.

But what "not colonize" really mean in this context?

[Vosem]

Colonization was awful, but decolonization was also horrible. Without the initial European colonization, would Africa be better off? Yes, probably. But, once it had happened, decolonization was also a horrible development. So I vote 'Other' (which isn't one of your options, so I abstain).

[Sibboleth]

Colonization was awful, but decolonization was also horrible.

Do you mean that it happened or the way in which it happened? Because the latter is a fair point, the former... are you drunk?

[politicus]

Africa was hardly an unchanged society in the 1870s, by then contact with the Europeans (and I don't just mean the Slave Trade here) had changed the nature of the continent drastically. There is no reason to think that had Europe 'left it alone'*, it would at all like it did in 1870.

* (Of course, what do you mean by that?)

Who said anything about "it would look like 1870"? It obviously would not. The interesting thing is how the continent would have developed without conquest and colonization. No one is making a case for total isolation, that would be ludicrous.

Left it alone= not colonized it

The point was partly to pre-empt the common notions of pre-colonial Africa. Of course by 1870 there was British Cape Colony (whose white population was of majority Dutch descent and had moved much further into interior), French Algeria and all those coastal forts that had been left behind from the days of the slave trade which nobody was quite sure what to do with. Also strong (and by then a few centuries old in places) Portuguese presence in certain parts. Though at this place the Congo "Free State" was still a notion in a megalo-and-mono-maniacs perverse ramblings, taken seriously by none.

But what "not colonize" really mean in this context?

Coastal forts would probably be abandoned, as they no longer had much relevance after the end of the slave trade.
Portuguese settlements are either not expanded to the interior or are abandoned, as their establishment and relevance were strongly related to the slave trade (Portugal being slave trader no. 1).
South Africa and French Algeria with their significant white settler population are a different story all together. They are also on the fringe of the continent.

The question relates to the conquest of and establishment of colonial administrations on almost the entire continent 1880-1900.

[shua]

I vote "it was a disaster" just because that's the most fitting description. It was a disaster for Africa, and it wasn't all that great for Europe either.  The gawd-awfulness of the post-colonial governments might owe something to the destruction that preceeded them. That's not to say there weren't some good effects, but I can't think of much that was unambiguously good.  At least, not yet.  Maybe in the next decades we'll see progress on clean water, modern medicine, economic development, free markets, human rights, enlightened religion, etc. That will be as much in spite of colonialism as because of it.

[politicus]

Colonization was awful, but decolonization was also horrible. Without the initial European colonization, would Africa be better off? Yes, probably. But, once it had happened, decolonization was also a horrible development. So I vote 'Other' (which isn't one of your options, so I abstain).

Decolonization and its effects are not part of the question. It deals solely with the consequences of colonization or lack of colonization.

[Jerseyrules]

If it has ever done any good it remains to be demonstrated. The bad it has caused is blatant.

On the bright side, they got resources and tech from the European nations.  I maintain that German colonialism caused minimal damage, and they treated their colonies with the most respect, save for maybe the Scandanavian colonies in Greenland and Iceland

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Firstly I observe that, if European states hadn't seized up Africa, much of it would probably have been seized up by a coalition of corporations and slavers instead. We got a prelude of what that looks like with the Congo company and the Saharan/East African slaver states... I have no doubt that most uncolonized African land would have ended up slaver/corporation territory instead, because most of Africa lacked state or social institutions capable of resisting them. And I feel certain that such slaver/corporate governments would be even worse then colonial/post-colonial regimes.

Secondly I observe that Ethiopia, which was never colonized, is one of the sh**ttiest states in Africa. It was briefly occupied as Italy, but I don't see that as long enough to constitute true colonialism, especially since the Italians did less damage then the Germans/Japanese did in much of the territory that they occupied. Hell the Italians unintentionally knocked off slavery and made it easier for the Ethiopian emperor to launch progressive reforms upon his return to power, so a case might be made that Italian occupation rendered Ethiopia better off.

Thirdly I observe that other comparatively "natural" states in Africa- Somalia and Swaziland being the clearest examples- are doing badly even by the standards of Africa as well.

Fourthly I observe that the population has boomed since European colonialism. That is not because Africa's birthrate has increased(they didn't have birth control prior to Europeans, whereas now they do)... it is because the carrying capacity of Africa has increased due to European agriculture and imports, and because life expectancy has increased due to Euro technology and medicine. Think about that.... it's not that the birthrate increased, its that more Africans lived long enough to have their own kids.

So I'm on the fence on whether to call colonialism a good thing or not. Phrase it as "less awful then the alternative", and I'll go with that.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Firstly I observe that, if European states hadn't seized up Africa, much of it would probably have been seized up by a coalition of corporations and slavers instead. We got a prelude of what that looks like with the Congo company and the Saharan/East African slaver states... I have no doubt that most uncolonized African land would have ended up slaver/corporation territory instead, because most of Africa lacked state or social institutions capable of resisting them. And I feel certain that such slaver/corporate governments would be even worse then colonial/post-colonial regimes.

Secondly I observe that Ethiopia, which was never colonized, is one of the sh**ttiest states in Africa. It was briefly occupied as Italy, but I don't see that as long enough to constitute true colonialism, especially since the Italians did less damage then the Germans/Japanese did in much of the territory that they occupied. Hell the Italians unintentionally knocked off slavery and made it easier for the Ethiopian emperor to launch progressive reforms upon his return to power, so a case might be made that Italian occupation rendered Ethiopia better off.

Thirdly I observe that other comparatively "natural" states in Africa- Somalia and Swaziland being the clearest examples- are doing badly even by the standards of Africa as well.

Fourthly I observe that the population has boomed since European colonialism. That is not because Africa's birthrate has increased(they didn't have birth control prior to Europeans, whereas now they do)... it is because the carrying capacity of Africa has increased due to European agriculture and imports, and because life expectancy has increased due to Euro technology and medicine. Think about that.... it's not that the birthrate increased, its that more Africans lived long enough to have their own kids.

So I'm on the fence on whether to call colonialism a good thing or not. Phrase it as "less awful then the alternative", and I'll go with that.

First of those is more or less what happened anyway... What else was Rhodesia?

[The Mikado]

...

Angry screed now, or reasoned response later?

[asexual trans victimologist]

...

Angry screed now, or reasoned response later?

Both.

[Sibboleth]

If it has ever done any good it remains to be demonstrated. The bad it has caused is blatant.

On the bright side, they got resources and tech from the European nations.  I maintain that German colonialism caused minimal damage, and they treated their colonies with the most respect, save for maybe the Scandanavian colonies in Greenland and Iceland

Shut up.

[The Mikado]

If it has ever done any good it remains to be demonstrated. The bad it has caused is blatant.

On the bright side, they got resources and tech from the European nations.  I maintain that German colonialism caused minimal damage, and they treated their colonies with the most respect, save for maybe the Scandanavian colonies in Greenland and Iceland

Shut up.

Have you read Isabel Hull's Absolute Destruction?  She makes the case that we should start the history of genocide in the 20th century with the Herero Massacre rather than the Armenian Genocide and that German colonial tactics in SWA (accepting no peace that did not involve the death of Samuel Maharero, the intentional policy of mass starvation and forcing the Herero into the desert, shooting prisoners and forcing the Herero they did take prisoner to live on a vegetarian diet when the Herero were one of the most meat-dependent people on the planet, leading to the food killing their unprepared bodies) arose because of German military doctrine fetishizing the offensive and absolute victory.  She draws a connection between the practices in SWA with the application of German military doctrine in the First World War and their tacit approval of the Armenian Genocide.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Firstly I observe that, if European states hadn't seized up Africa, much of it would probably have been seized up by a coalition of corporations and slavers instead. We got a prelude of what that looks like with the Congo company and the Saharan/East African slaver states... I have no doubt that most uncolonized African land would have ended up slaver/corporation territory instead, because most of Africa lacked state or social institutions capable of resisting them. And I feel certain that such slaver/corporate governments would be even worse then colonial/post-colonial regimes.

Secondly I observe that Ethiopia, which was never colonized, is one of the sh**ttiest states in Africa. It was briefly occupied as Italy, but I don't see that as long enough to constitute true colonialism, especially since the Italians did less damage then the Germans/Japanese did in much of the territory that they occupied. Hell the Italians unintentionally knocked off slavery and made it easier for the Ethiopian emperor to launch progressive reforms upon his return to power, so a case might be made that Italian occupation rendered Ethiopia better off.

Thirdly I observe that other comparatively "natural" states in Africa- Somalia and Swaziland being the clearest examples- are doing badly even by the standards of Africa as well.

Fourthly I observe that the population has boomed since European colonialism. That is not because Africa's birthrate has increased(they didn't have birth control prior to Europeans, whereas now they do)... it is because the carrying capacity of Africa has increased due to European agriculture and imports, and because life expectancy has increased due to Euro technology and medicine. Think about that.... it's not that the birthrate increased, its that more Africans lived long enough to have their own kids.

So I'm on the fence on whether to call colonialism a good thing or not. Phrase it as "less awful then the alternative", and I'll go with that.

First of those is more or less what happened anyway... What else was Rhodesia?

You are honestly suggesting Rhodesia is comparable to the "Congo Free State" and various slaver states? Ever read Heart of Darkness? Ever read up on the Saharan/East African slave trade?

[True Federalist]

The Germans acted differently in Deutsch-Südwestafrika than they did their other colonies.  It also was the only one in which they tried to settle many colonists relative to the population.  In DSWA they mainly wanted the land, but in the other ones they mainly wanted the commerce and thus would engage in activities that would make the natives more prosperous and thus give them more commerce to make money off of.

[Јas]

I don't have much to add to this discussion, but as it happens I'm actually in Namibia this week.

I've only really been around the area of Swakopmund - but the German influence remains, at least here, remarkably overt. German is as much (if not more so) the language of the white population as is English. There are a couple of monuments in town for German war dead - one relating to the Herrero Campaign, the other for both World Wars. The flag of Deutsch-Südwestafrika is noticeable on tourist knick-knacks and such (and I'm pretty sure I spotted a portrait of Hitler semi-hidden in one antiques shop).

[dialectical fetishist]

Largely beneficial at a very basic level. That doesn't mean it was a justified system.

[Vasall des Midas]

I maintain that German colonialism caused minimal damage, and they treated their colonies with the most respect

Lolwut? They basically massacred as many Africans as they could possibly get hands on, without even any sort of economic incentive, just because they felt that to do so was a necessary condition to being a European power.