BernardR wrote:Really? Can you prove the following is not true?
Some have pointed out that the transfer from colonial rule to independence in the early 1960's began to collapse with militarization by the late 1980's. It was then apparent that the great bulk of the continent had become and would remain politically unstable and incapable of self sustained economic growth , or even of a place within the international economy.
Because you seemed a little slow on the uptake, i was pointing out why this occured.
Quote:There was no militarization by the late 1980's?
Strawman, i did not make such a contention. (Although i would not that militarization began in many of the former colonies in the late 1960s, rather than the 1980s.)
Quote:The great bulk of the continent is politically stable?
Strawman, i did not make such a contention.
Quote:Africa has shown it is capable of sustained economic growth?
Strawman, i did not make such a contention.
It is not demonstrated that even the West is capable of "sustained economic growth." One of the greatest discussion in theoretical economics to day is whether or not there is such a thing as sustainable economic growth in the wake of globalization. All previous examples of colonial economies, and exploitative economies of scale in international trade, have depended upon the increasing exploitation of markets which are captive to colonial authority, or to larger, more efficient foreign producers. That African nations have been no more successful since the 1960s at becoming successful export economies than have, for example, the central and south American nations, or the south and east Asian nations, is not surprising. Until quite recently, apart from Japan and Taiwan, there were no successful export economies in south and east Asia. It is only recently that Indonesia, Singapore, Korea and others have joined them. Asian nations were a little more rational, but Indonesia provides a similar example of what happens when a nation is created out of a colony without regard for clan, tribal or ethnic divisions.
We are discussing an entire continent--and therefore are generalizing. I have not denied the things to which you refer, i am explaining why these things were true. Nations in sub-Saharan Africa armed either because their new governments intended to attack ethnic or tribal minorities within their own borders, or to attack such rivals in other nations, or in fear of being attacked themselves. Even that was not a universal behavior. For example, the former French colony of Sénégal and the former English colony of Sierra Leone did not go through such a cycle. (Sierra Leone only sank into civil war after tribal warfare was imported from Liberia and aided and abetted by Charles Taylor.) Many of the former French colonies have avoided the cycle because the French have remained engaged with their former colonies, much to the economic benefit of both France and the former colonies. The former Belgian colony of Congo was the first great example of the tribal warfare which has plagued Africa, but, as was the case in Uganda, this was not initially recognized as such. In Uganda, Idi Amin was a former Sgt. Major in the colonial armed forces, and his reign of terror was tribally based, but that was not immediately recognized in the West, and is only now becoming apparent to Western observers. In South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the tribal rivalries were subordinated in the struggle against white supremacy. In Somalia, the rivalries are clan-based, rather than tribal. In Angola, the tribal rivalries were obscurred by the ideological warfare between a Marxist government and the UNITAS organization.
You are so focused on arguing with anyone whom you believe does not think as you do, that you are missing the point. What you have referred to as the problems of Africa are neither universal in the continent, nor unique to Africa. Once again, Indonesia provides and example in Asia of a "nation" which is the product of colonialism (formerly the Dutch East Indies), and in which groups (ethnic and religious) are potentially in conflict. Review the tragedy in Timor. I have not necessarily disagreed with you about the problems of a good deal of post-colonial Africa (but not all of Africa), i am simply pointing out the reason it has happened.
