This from today’s (well yesterday’s now ? I was trying to get something up before midnight) Telegraph:
Robert Mugabe is considering stepping down as Zimbabwe’s president within a year under “certain conditions”, South African government sources said yesterday.
His demands include the right to nominate his successor and international and local recognition that he remains the country’s properly elected founding president to enable him to enjoy “honourable retirement”, they said.
The 79-year-old autocrat, whose obsession with clinging to power has brought his once-prosperous nation to the edge of economic collapse and political chaos, is said to have assured President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa of his retirement plans in a telephone call last week.
Mr Mbeki sees Mr Mugabe as a major impediment to his dream of successfully launching Nepad – the “new partnership for Africa’s development” under which African nations commit themselves to good governance in return for international financial aid.
Mr Mbeki was said to have been enraged by images emerging from Zimbabwe of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change being hauled before court in chains to face a second charge of high treason for organising protests against the Mugabe government.
According to sources, Mr Mbeki told Mr Mugabe of South Africa’s “displeasure”.
What a world of misery and sleaze is captured in these few paragraphs.
And how about Nepad? Don’t they realise that “Nep” is the start of other words, which suggest anything but “good governance”, but which instead involve such practices as nominating one’s successor from within the ranks of one’s own family? This whole Zimbabwe mess makes me think that actually something much bigger may be going on than merely the struggle between these bad guys (in power) and these good guys (not yet in power). What if things in Africa just keep on getting worse and worse, and what if the decision that we all, in our nice safe countries, have eventually to make about Africa is not which ones are the nice Africans whom we should be helping, but whether to try to rescue the entire place by conquering it, again.
We’re decades away from any such plan emerging in all seriousness, but I can see us starting to think about this sort of thing, any year it now. Regime change, is, after all, now on the menu of things that are thinkable. The USA and the UN would have to be more in tune than they are now, but I can see that happening.
South Africa, from what I’ve read, is losing its professional classes inexorably. This article was published in 1998, and according to a piece by R. W. Johnson in the last Prospect but one (paper only), things haven’t improved any since, in this respect. The haemorrhaging of professionals of all colours from that increasingly unhappy country continues relentlessly, which at least counterbalances the refugees now flooding in from Zimbabwe. And as for the Congo ?
Many might say that to even hint at the notion of a future reconquest of Africa is cruel and frivolous. But I think that such talk might actually do some good. The present line taken by the likes of Mugabe is that the problems he is facing now are all caused by white interference in the past, and by continuing white interference now, and that any black Zimbabwean who protests against him is just a tool of imperialism. Yet the truth is that one of the men now doing most to revive the idea of another wave of imperialism in Africa is Mugabe himself, and telling him this just might stir up a bit of embarrassment around him. Best of all, it might make the bastard suffer:
Mr Mugabe, people are saying that Africa ought to be reconquered by White Men, partly because of how you do things. Any comment on that?
And the opposition to Mugabe could say that because of Mugabe, White Men are talking of reconquering Africa. He’s the friend of White Imperialism, not us. And it would be true.
On the other hand maybe Kim du Toit has a clearer fix on what we should do.
It’s quite clear that the ugliest ‘disease’ that Europe brought to that continent was Socialism. It’s probably killed more africans that any biological contagen that can be named. Sadly, the only prescription that Europe is going to come up with is *more* Socialism. I don’t see a way out for the long suffering people of Africa until they get real free markets and true representative government (not necessarily in that order). And there aren’t many in the world who are ready to prescribe that treatment.
I tend to agree with Kim Du Toit. No amount of western interference is going to make the brighter future for Africans regardless of how well-intentioned said westerners are.
I am also against expending the blood and treasure that will be required to reconquer the place. I’m afraid that the best thing is for Africa to be left to its own devices and either grown up or not as the case may be.
Taken from my friend’s diary. She moved back to Zimbabwe from Norwich two weeks ago.
“I am too tired and traumatised to really explain but my brother’s girlfriend lives nextdoor and she called us on her cellphone to say there were armed robbers in her house, her and her stepmom and step-brothers and sisters were locked in the bedroom. We set off our alarm and called the reaction squad (more like wait around until it’s safe squad)and sent my mom to get the cops. My mom couldn’t find any police at the police station so my mother, the woman who is knee high to a grasshopper, goes round to their house where she knows there are armed robbers and hoots and hoots and flashes her lights and finally the electric gate opens and she drives in, gets out of the car and is shot in the leg. (WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?!? WHY WOULD SHE GO THERE? IS SHE FUCKING UNHINGED?) Meanwhile my brother is hysterical because we are hiding in the house with the alarm wailing and we hear a gunshot from nextdoor and he thinks his girlfriend is dead. And I am just hysterical because I am hysterical naturally these days. Anyway my mom unties their guard (limping and bleeding-the bullet passed through her muscle, so she is sore but can walk and will heal if we live through this.) and lets them out of the bedroom and the whole neighbourhood comes round a little too late and my mom is taken off to A&E, and I finally hunt down my dad and he goes off to A&E to meet her. My brain can’t believe this is all true. Twice in eight days I have almost been a child of single parent family. My mom is fine. My brother’s girlfriend is fine, her family is fine though they are less a car and the entire contents of their house. I am not sure what fine really means anymore. I am not sure at all. My land is beautiful, beautiful but lethal.”
This comes eight days after her mother was beaten in her own home. David, do you REALLY think it’s for the best that Africa is “left to its own devices”? This girl is one of my favourite people in the world, and it hurts to see her like this. I’m pretty sure that leaving Africa on its own will just produce more of this evil, senseless violence.
Because of political correctness and socialist bias in the media, no mainstream politician (America possibly excepted) is going to stand up and tell the truth about post-colonial Africa. It would be political suicide!
Yet Africa ruled by Africans is a massive disaster and seems to get steadily worse. Any interventions short of re-colonisation are just band-aids. But I can’t see recolonization without wholesale political changes in the West and world institutions, e.g. the UN gone. Even then I just can’t see it, although an arrangement similar to Puerto Rico’s is a possibility for say Liberia.
Brian, I don’t think that this piece does you credit and Kim du Toit’s is not worthy of a response.
Africa cannot be allowed to sink. It is not in our interests anymore than it is in our interests to let the black population in our midst sink. We have a clear national (and racial) interest in this matter and it behoves us to find an intelligent way to apply it.
We had the beginnings of a solution – in principle at least if not in detailed methodology – back in the days of the Brandt Report. There were two substantial difficulties. First, the political will did not exist to, in effect, transfer wealth from north to south. Two, the effectiveness of mega-schemes was already discredited and neither Reagon in the White House nor Thatcher here would have countenanced them for a moment.
Things have moved on. Mbeki is right to understand the centrality of good governance. It is a beginning. For our own sakes we should find ways to support him further and advance if not wealth – there are profound educational limitations to that – at least stability and the basics of a decent life in that continent.
Liz,
One can lift stories of violent and wicked crimes like this from all the four corners of the Earth (not to mention Britain). What do you propose we do about it? Police the whole continent? If so, for how long? A year? Five years? For ever?
Placing Africans under Western (which, in practice, will mean American and British) guardianship like delinquent wards will not enable them to either mature or develop.
Africa has not yet joined the civilized world.
The attempts by the colonial powers of a century past to inculcate European concepts of law and justice in Africa were noble, and doomed. When those powers came to Africa, it was in a state of moral and social development comparable to Europe before the founding of the city of Rome. It took Europe two thousand years to advance to the point where defensible concepts of law and justice could prevail there.
Africa hasn’t had two thousand years. The African mind is still mired in tribalism, inhospitable to fundamental concepts of right and wrong and notions of objective justice. No one has figured out a way to accelerate the process of enlightenment. Until that infrastructure has formed — and it cannot be formed out of bullets or bombs — interventions by more advanced societies will bring no lasting benefit.
For a further rumination, see here.
“And the opposition to Mugabe could say that because of Mugabe, White Men are talking of reconquering Africa. He’s the friend of White Imperialism, not us. And it would be true.”
If Mugabe could cause the reconquering of Africa by Europeans (and Americans, and presumably Chinese and Japanese ?) he would be doing a huge, huge favour to Africa, and all Africans need to kiss his hands.
If there is anything left in Africa still working (infrastructure, factories) it was all built by the colonialists and not yet destroyed after independence. (There isn’t much).
But this is all just fantasy. Africa will have to live without the benefit of beeing occupied by America, unless they start blowing up some skyscrapers.
Guessedworker:
“Africa cannot be allowed to sink. It is not in our interests anymore than it is in our interests to let the black population in our midst sink”
It is arrogant and delusionary to say “we cannot allow Africa.. this or that ”
Africa isn’t “ours” to allow it or unallow it to sink.
There isn’t much we could do for Africa even if we wanted to help them. We are not omnipotent and able to shape humanity as we desire.
However, if you, personally, feel like helping Africa then by all means, go there and do your best, and good luck.
“One can lift stories of violent and wicked crimes like this from all the four corners of the Earth (not to mention Britain). What do you propose we do about it? Police the whole continent? If so, for how long? A year? Five years? For ever?
Placing Africans under Western (which, in practice, will mean American and British) guardianship like delinquent wards will not enable them to either mature or develop.”
I dunno, if policing Iraq will work, then why won’t policing African nations? Or is it only a lie about wepons of mass destruction that justifies liberating oppressed people from their rulers?
Here’s a “Nep” reference you missed – Lenin’s New Economic Policy. It was somewhat less oppressive than what preceded it, but remained within the structure of state control, didn’t last long, and was eventually replaced by even worse oppression.
Sounds about right.
Depressingly, I must throw in my lot with David and his fellow pessimists on Africa. Why? Because in the past couple of years some of the most advanced and stable countries have all but disintegrated–think Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe–with breathtaking speed. Sure, you can point to the occasional bright spot as well–Uganda, post-election Kenya–but there is no evidence the balance is tipping their way.
I think well-intentioned outsiders have no clue how to help Africa, unless there exists a stable govt that can receive timely assistance (again, e.g. Uganda). Look at what happened in Congo? Mobuto is a monster, we all shouted, out with him. Chaos ensued, only halted by the intervention of self-interested neighbors (oops, Uganda again, in less flattering light!). Get out, we shouted. But into the vacuum rushed only murderous pre-teens with machetes and automatic rifles. Now a few hundred French and Uruguayan soldiers are going to staunch the blood for a nanosecond. Then what?
I know I’m going to sound like an ass, but did anyone ever watch Star Trek? Remember the prime directive–do not interfere in the internal workings of an alien civilization? When this was ignored, all kinds of shit happened. Time for a prime directive in Africa.
Jacob,
You are right. I admit it. Everyone who gives up on Africa and Africans is right. No question about it, all the evidence todate, save colonialism, is that Africans do not have the civilisation-building skills to follow along the path of the western world. I agree. But it ain’t acceptable to leave the argument there, my friend.
The first thing to admit is that Africans have profound limitations. Do a Google search on Professor Phillipe Rushton of Ontario University – put away your liberal attitudes, mind – and get the whole story. Rushton is a specialist in human intelligence. Since we are basing this thread on Zimbabwe, that benighted land has one of the lowest average IQ’s on the continent – just 66 (which for a white man would be marginally moronic).
Are you, Jacob, by any chance Jewish? An Ashkenazic? If so, congratulations. You have the highest average quotient of any racial grouping in the world – 116. My lot (English) only come in at 102. But then we have been instrumental in building the greatest civilisation in the history of mankind. Jews, though extremely helpful to that process, have not noticeably surpassed it. Could be something to do with the average quotient of Israelis of just 94! You see what a slippery business this is.
My point is that we must put away the expectation of a gleaming Africa of modern societies, modern cities paid for and developed out of the rising star of Africa civilisation. We do no justice to a people by setting western standards against which they will surely fail. We need to re-think the whole thing. Why, just a month ago I read about a car maker who has produced a tough, utterly basic machine with a price tag of a couple of thousand pounds.
With realism we might save ourselves a century of African migration northward – and believe me, the impact of a 66 IQ on the European gene pool will not be socially benign.
Don’t give up, Jacob. Design a £2000 car that will give Africa hope – on its own intellectual terms – for the future.
“She moved back to Zimbabwe from Norwich two weeks ago.”
What the hell for? Is she out of her damn mind? Did she expect to find a politically correct fantasyland awaiting her?
Guestworker–
Childhood malnutrition has a negative influence on IQ. Furthermore, Western IQs have been steadily rising. It’s not reflected in the statistics because the tests always make 100 the average.
So it’s not necessarily genetic. Genes could be part of it, but I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. (But then, African immigrants to Europe will probably take maladaptive cultural traits with them, causing malnutrition, ect, and still bringing down the average IQ.)
BTW, African immigrants to America are one of the highest performing immigrant groups. But America is an the other side of the ocean, which probably filters them, similar to the situation with Asians. For Europe they’d be more like our Hispanics.
After reading this post and the responses, all I can say is, don’t you think it’s time to stop pretending this site has a “libertarian perspective?”
You people who want to re-colonize Africa, and talk about the inferiority of Africans… why on earth would you even want to pretend you’re libertarians?
Because we feel free to talk, discuss with people who are equally interested in the truth rather than accepting perceived views because that’s what the thought nazis want? I don’t think there’s a single libertarian on this board arguing from any racial point of view.
“You people who want to recolonise Africa and talk about the inferiority of Africans” … well, we didn’t … but we’re not allowed to think outside the circle by the thought police? We’re not allowed to wonder why an entire, massive, rich continent is such a failure? Wouldn’t it be better if we could find out? It’s interesting that African immigrants to the US are very high on the achievement scale. Should we not investigate why this comes about? Or are we not allowed to mention black Americans, either? What is your problem? Free inquiry?
Africa has become the elephant in The Guardian’s living room.
Ken,
Libertarians favour truth. There is nothing essentially good or moral in doing otherwise. Egalitarian liberals, on the other hand, have deceived themselves and everybody else for the entire 20th Century with regard to their environmentalist view of humanity. At the same time psychologists attempting to publish or teach the science of human difference (sociobiology) have been accorded Stalinist-style treatment by the academic establishment in America, Canada and Britain.
However, the signs are that this process is coming to an end, if only by degrees. Please read “The Blank Slate” by Stephen Pinker, a liberal thinker. He has been brought to the point of accepting the truth of human difference and the heritability of IQ but, for now, he still insists that liberal goals are morally right. That too, though, may come into question eventually.
Aaron,
There have been many attempts to extrapolate general observations into arguments against sociobiology. None of them have stood the test of time. Phillipe Rushton, the Canadian sociobiologist whom I mentioned, has run out of people to debate him.
The latest “save environmenatilsm” theory to be debunked is the Flynn Effect (unintentionally disproved, in fact, by a leading black academic educational body in America).
For the record, the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa is 70. Afro-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans exhibit a varied white genetic loading which raises the average in both cases to 85. These are not figures fixed for all time in concrete. The evidence is still being assessed but the potential increase through nutritional and educative means apears to be extremely limited.
The black-to-white IQ gap accords with brain weights and cranial capacities. Black women have narrower hips because they give birth to babies with smaller heads. Those babies mature far faster than white babies. They go on to exhibit a panoply of sexual and social traits, including high male aggression, that Phillipe Rushton has successfully linked to the particular evolutionary demands of Africa. He has done the same for Europeans and East Asians (who, incidentally, average 105).
Liberal guilt may seek to wish all this away. But it really is better to face the issue and, for the future, resolve to do in Africa that which is possible. Certainly, the du Toit approach is not the way.
Ken
I can see how you might fiercely disagree with any notion of re-conquering Africa. Most people do. But it is surely not beyond possibility that if someone did reconquer Africa, this might result in an increase in the sum total of human liberty and human happiness. It is putting it very mildly indeed to say that it also might not, I certainly agree about that. But, it might.
Part of my motive for the original posting was that, from a libertarian point of view, some such re-conquest – and in the meantime people talking about it – might do some good.
My other motive, however, is that whether you or I or the rest of us here talk about it or not, I do definitely predict that such talk is going to get louder from many other quarters in the years to come.
“Aid” doesn’t seem to be working, in all the ways and for all the reasons that you and I probably quite largely agree about.
But suppose, meanwhile, that the Iraq invasion is widely rated as a success, whatever the real truth of the matter and whatever you think about that. If that happens, it is virtually inevitable that others will suggest the reconquest of Africa. Indeed, in the course of arguing about the rights and wrongs of Iraq, the suggestion that Africa might also be on some future invasion list, for many of the reasons that apply to Iraq, has indeed already been aired here, by an opponent of the Iraq thing who pointed out (correctly in my opinion) that this might be a logical next step. And it might well be.
Your claim that this site doesn’t have a libertarian perspective, merely because it scores nought out of one on your foreign policy test, and because many of the commenters are plainly not libertarians or wanting to call themselves that, is odd.
Why can’t you simply accept that libertarians have deep disagreements about foreign policy? As we do about abortion, to name another hot issue. Or is there a fixed line on that as well?
Meanwhile, surely you agree that Samizdata has quite a lot of libertarian things to say about other matters.
And surely you concede that our reasons for favouring (those of us that do) the invasion of Iraq and at least thinking about some of the pros and cons of a possible reconquest of Africa, are to do with liberty and getting a lot of it, for Africans and for everybody else.
Guestworker
“Don’t give up, Jacob. Design a £2000 car that will give Africa hope – on its own intellectual terms – for the future.”
What has that got to do with Africa ? If somebody can design a good car for 2000 pounds, I’ll buy a couple. A good thing is a good thing in it’s own right, regardless of Africa.
What I was talking about is the delusion that we (whoever “we” are) might be able, by any means, to lift Africa out of it’s mess in a hurry.
That is not possible. We cannot control or change the evolution of human society. Africa will evolve in it’s own way, and there is little we can do to change this or hasten the pace.
Individuals can help in many ways, contributing, each one, his infinitesimally small contribution, if he feels so inclined. But there isn’t any Grand Scheme that will save Africa and transform it completely in a couple of decades. Social engineering isn’t possible. That goes also for the re-colonialization scheme, which is impractical for many additional reasons, though we must admit that colonialization (in the past) did more for the modernization of Africa than anything else, before or since.
About the IQ tests you seem so enthusiastic about – I don’t know exactly what the IQ test is supposed to measure, and how reliable and accurate it is. In short: I’m sceptic about it.
Jacob,
The car is called the Africar and it will, I believe, be assembled in SA. I am sorry I didn’t make that point clear. As an example for what we, in the broadest sense, in the west can do to provide workable solutions I don’t think it’s at all bad – and certainly better than flogging S500’s to corrupt officials. I refer to both vehicles, of course, in figurative terms.
As for a Grand Scheme, well there was one twenty years ago. Maybe it should be dusted off and modernised. Beyond that, all that you say is accurate.
The IQ tests are valid. They have been gathered for over seventy years and demonstrate extremely stable results. In the last two decades great efforts have been made to correct for any conceivable cultural bias. But the same results come shining through. They are presented in the published works of many highly distinguished psychologists and underpin that branch of cognitive psychology known as sociobiology. All that I have said you can easily verify. I urge you to check it out and then to ask yourself what it means for liberal thought, for public attitudes and for western government and its prediliction for big, “blank sheet” spending programmes (ie affirmative action in the States, Excellence in Cities here).
If I recall this correctly, from a history course thirty years ago, Bismarck, just before he was sacked by Wilhelm II, decided that the German colonies in Africa were a dead loss as an economic proposition. Of course they couldn’t just admit it and walk out, just as the British, French and Belgians couldn’t just cut bait either without embarrassing their respective national honors.
There is a rather cynical comment about marriage:
Why buy the cow when you can just buy the milk. This may apply with far more force to colonialism. The idea that colonies are to a colonizing countries advantage is a relic of mercantilism. Frankly I am amazed to see it suggested among libertarians, even apostate ones.
There may be good moral, or perhaps even geopolitical reasons to attempt to interfere in Africa, but there are no good economic reasons for colonies.
Perhaps it might be possible for a country like the US, with a large black population which must include some adventurous entrepreneurs, to build a reputation similar to the old Roman one: One just didn’t screw with a Roman citizen. Julius Caesar’s revenge on the pirates who kidnapped him was just one of the actions which built this reputation. The dismay of Paul’s persecutors when they discovered his citizenship is an example of its effect. A businessman in Africa with that kind of potential muscle behind him would have some immunity to the human part of African lethality. So protected, he might be able to do a little incremental improvement.
I know that the US is being seen as a bully in the world these days, but this may be an aspect of bullying that has the potential to be a positive good.
The U. S. has at least 100 years left to deal with it’s racial problems relating to former slaves. New racial problems related to illegal immigrants may take 200 years at least to deal with. I would be very surprised to see any domestic constituency for leading the U. S. into Africa emerge for at least the next century.
I have seen zero “back to Africa” interest in the African-American community. I think they know that in a certain sense the misery their ancestors endured paid for lives today that are superior on any dimension to what they would have been had their ancestors stayed in Africa. African-Americans are still trying to get the emphasis on American. When this is done, perhaps they will then look to rescuing the “old country.” Until then, they’re still moving on up.
Beyond that, there is Blackhawk Down. For better or worse, that’s what the movies show happens to Americans in Africa. On Main Street USA, “Africa, isn’t that where Somalia is? You know what happened there.” will pass for geopolitical wisdom. Americans reinforce victory and starve defeat. The Africans, like the Vietnamese, will learn what Grand Fenwick always knew, it is much more profitable to let the Americans win.
If the Belgians feel real bad about what happened in the Congo and decide to clean up the mess they left, we might keep NATO in Brussels. But then again, maybe not. As for South Africa, that’s for the British and Dutch. Liberia? That’s close to the Ivory Coast isn’t it? Let the French do that one. They are so much better at the Imperial thing than we, after all.
Mr.Hagler,
We do not operate topical taboos nor is there any ‘party line’ at this Blog. This is reflected in the wide variety of responses from our readers many of whom, I suspect, will defy ready pigeon-holing.
A Libertarian can also be a Humanitarian and try and find real solutions, rather than the ideological posturing of much of the Left.
One of the problems we face is that large swathes of history have been ‘air-brushed’ to conform with the current politically correct climate. So for example most colonial activity started out as private enterprise (even by monarchs for whom selling exclusive licenses was an important source of revenue).
So Britain’s Empire in India (and elsewhere) was founded and developed by a private company – the East India Company. Ditto the North American colonies. Only later did governments get in on the act.
Such free-enterprise driven activities albeit on a much smaller scale still continue with oil and mining companies who provide security, clinics and schools to keep the local population happy around their sites. Its good business, and good business and good government go hand-in-hand.
There is no reason why this model cannot be scale-up to work in resource rich parts of Africa. Entreneurs given franchises to run the place, in exchange for a percentage of the profits. Contracts specifying measurable human welfare metrics – infant mortality, incidence of malaria, etc. The impediments are primarily international institutions (especially the UN) and international law (companies getting sued for things governments did).
If and when this approach proves to work (and arguably it is already proven, although not provably scalable), the money will be found to extend it to resource poor areas. There is no lack of good intentions towards Africa. What is lacking is alternatives to the awful failure resulting from the current political orthodoxy.
Phil B is absolutely right !
The biggest impediment to the developing of Africa (and other poor countries) is the anti-capitalistic mentality – or – to be more specific: the socialist ideology which seems to govern not only the policy of many African governments, but also of all outside “do gooders” like the UN, the NGOs, etc.
So, in spite of the policy of neglect and indifference toward Africa that David Carr proposed – Samizdata is really doing very much toward helping Africa – it is helping them get rid of the root cause of poverty – socialism.
Jacob,
I suggested neither neglect or indifference. I am just not in favour of recolonising Africa and turning it into a gigantic welfare continent.
Isn’t Africa already effectively a giant welfare continent? I think we’ve been providing far too much fish, and not enough fishing lessons, for a goodly long time.
Guestworker has some very good un-PC points about IQ. Note that the Flynn effect of rising intelligence has mostly been shown to be nutritional, and that the standard deviations between racial groups have stayed constant in the face of it. Outright eugenics is of course a wash, but future genetic engineering may very well be able to help boost IQ.
As far as the ‘prime directive’ angle goes, I think we’d already irrevocably botched it on Africa once we’d introduced infant mortality lowering medicine without comparably advanced renewable agriculture techniques. And we’ve subsidized birth rates at their traditional high level with endless food aid. No harsh, but useful, corrective feedback has been allowed to develope: if having more than 3 children had been allowed to be as immediately disastrous as it has long become in Africa, perhaps some lessons would have been learned.
How about for every $100,000 of food aid, we insted sent a soil retention specialist and a teacher to Africa for a year? Fishing lessons, not fish, will be the answer.
Ever since Africa met with Europeans, Europeans have been interested primarily in Taking resources out of Africa and Finding New Markets for their products. If you think about this more insightfully you will realise there can be only one primary outcome of this, which is sucking Africans dry to the bone.
Africans resistance to this form of destruction has been met with increasingly innovative methods of enforcement to continue the practice of the above stated exploitation. From the obviously savage slavery to unpayable debts and destruction of Africas Local Markets by world bank and other financial institutions.
An incomplet list of methods include:
Slavery, Protectoratism, Colonisation, Puppet Leaders (Western Friendly to ensure exploitation can continue), Spies to expedite western objectives covertly, Bribery and corruption by western businesses to guarantee contracts for building Africa which are unsustainable by African people, IMF bad loans given to African Leaders, and returning to the west through corrupt contracts which ensures the money is shared between the leaders and the western businesses, the money goes back to the west and they can easily bribe their way to avoid proper taxes while the african leaders stash the stolen money in western banks to ensure it cant be reclaimed from them by their own people, thus the money never reaches the African people, yet the African people have to sweat blood for an indefinite period in unpayable debt servicing, Western financial institutions imposing Austerity measures for African countries whilst subsidising their own industries effectively destroying the possibility of the African people to provide for themselves.
Colonisation lumped numerous African Cultures into large countries for one reason, to simplify control and exploitation of the greatly diversified and independent cultural terrain. In Nigeria alone there are well over 250 different ethnic groups, each with their own distinct language, culture and social formation, forcing all these people to be one independent country has only one result: Chaos. Imagine Germany,France,England,Spain,Italy,Holland,Denmark as one country forced to live together as one, the second world war would have been nothing compared to the chaos, yet there are much fewer ethnic groups represented in the states I just mentioned and the whole world wonders why there is always war between ethnic groups in Africa. Its obvious this is an implementation of divide and conquer principle for the destruction of a people.
Africans social structure is completely destroyed, Africans were forced to abandon their language for western languages, their social and governmental structures for western structures, which they have little comprehension of how this evolved. In other words europeans are saying Africans should erase their heritage and adopt european heritage otherwords become europeans in mind, yet instituted racism to keep africans away from europeans using institutions of higher learning to endorse the myth that Africans are lesser beings, which is taught to Africans and Europeans alike.
Conclusion: With the utter destruction of social, governmental, educational, cultural, commercial structures of Africa, their is no way Africa can be expected to progress unless this issues are repaired.
However as individuals Africans have proved they can rise out of underpriviledged conditions to compete and dominate certain areas where they have been allowed to participate open and fair
Sports
Music
Arts
Academics
Literature
Religion
Would be interesting to see what happens in some areas if Africans participated starting out on the same footing.
Africa is the most diversified in cultures, languages, music, governmental systems. Africans have had working democratic systems instituted long before contact with Europeans, and lived in harmony with nature, the environment, wildlife and with mini-scale conflicts compared with European history of blood shed and desire to conquer neighbours.
So called Western Civilisation has within a period of a few hundred years produced the result of endangering species of plant and wildlife, caused great damage to the environment, had a great number of conflicts, genocide, extermination of races, the largest scale of wars ever seen, creation of inconceivably destructive weapons to destroy not just human beings but the entire world, used religion, fear, social programming, propaganda, the media to keep their own people supporting these unwise progressions to destruction of other people, themselves and the planet we live in.
Seeing these things Africans are expected to take hook and sinker this philosophy and endorse this highly destructive machine. I think Africans are ready to accept new ideas and ways of doing things as far as they are developed enough to take into consideration true civilisation, which means people systems for people to live togeter in a civilised way in harmony and respect for one another, nature and the environment.
Concepts that consider the environment, and more respect for individuality of people are just being developed in the western world and yet are so slow and difficult to implement, the western world can therefore be described as a correct civilisation to its people yet it is an incomplete civilisation when weighed with the true meaning of civilisation.