Replies

"....Africans have been out from under European colonialism for more than half a century. It did not take the U.S. a half a century to “dismantle the vestiges” of European colonialism here. On the other hand, the true racsim of the west, it’s “guilt” (racist thinking the “poor” Africans cannot stand on their own) , while ending colonialism assumed they must always fund “assistance” and “aid” to Africa. That has hindered real development in Africa because it has more than anything else helped feed corruption in Africa and with that corruption bad governments that, just like the Europeans, promise hand outs. There are some Africans, usually well educated, who understand that and have been calling for an end to massive aid projects from the west, knowing they do not lead to development."

There are several very important differences between colonial America and colonial Africa:

1) The American colonials with the exception of the imported slaves were Europeans in origin. The vast majority of folks remaining in the African colonies were Africans.

2) The American colonials suffered little at the hands of their European masters other than what was characterized as "benign neglect". Most of the European settlers came of their own volition and had the benefit of western education prior to their voyage and brought with them those institutions which would continue to support them through education, technology of the day and their religious freedom for the most part, binding the individuals together in a new land.

3) Most of the product of America sold to the European traders were either grown by European colonials whether food stuffs, tobacco, cotton, indigo or were harvested from the land : timber, extractive minerals or bought and resold hides. There was some semblance of free trade taking place where the colonials willingly produced a product that was sold to the traders.

4) It wasn't until after the Seven Years War that the British starting taking a not so benevolent interest in America in the form of new taxes and denial of access to the "Northwest Territories" that the indignation started to grow in America. And even after the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" a majority of Americas would have been open to a negotiated arrangement of partial representation and freedom to continue life much as it had been in the past.

-----------------

The majority of development in Africa: the roads, ports and later railroads, were put in place to facilitate extractive mineral development and harvest of timber and agricultural products produced by the trading companies. There was little thought put into educating the residents and only a small part of the populace would ever benefit from the European colonization. It was not a great leap for Africa to revert to their tribal roots and the destruction and abandonment proceeded with rapidity. We've seen what happens as recently as the tragedy in Rhodesia, once the breadbasket of Africa turned into the horror of Zimbabwe with productive farms neglected, equipment sold off and telephone and electric lines torn down to sell for scrap.

------------

But I agree with your conclusion. Handouts (aid programs) are hardly ever the solution to a problem. Throw money at a corrupt African government and the money will be diverted for the most part.

Solving the issues in Africa will take generations of education, teaching them a trade, giving them a decent paying job developing infrastructure and creating a reason for them to stay. That is a huge task for most of a continent and I doubt the socialist governments of Europe are ready to take on that job.

And at the end of the day much can be said that the ones who want to work, who want a future for themselves and their family are already anchored in Africa. I suspect that much of the African immigrants flooding Europe are the detritus of their own societies. They aren't looking for a job but a handout and they have found that in a Europe that is to date tolerating their invasion. The only thing which will stop the exodus of boats will be a firm hand and resolve to send them back where they came from. Until/unless Europe develops that attitude the riff-raff will continue to flood in.

I think the biggest difference was as far as British subjects in North America, versus those living in Africa under European colonial rule, was that British subjects already had limited self-government, and the governing and political habits of self-government. They also had “native” (British colonials) with a class of highly educated folks versed in western history back to the greeks and romans, and from that class already had a founding in historic errors and successes of various governments.

The people is Africa had no such history, no such awarteness, and no already edcuated class who uderstood it.

THAT I think was the major deficit-difference between the 13 North American colonies in 1776 and the African European colonies, But, as I said, that difference should not have taken half a century to make up, yet they have not. Most of them remian horribly governed.

The few educated Africans that do understand it want western aid to “get out”. It is just feeding the kind of governments Africa needs to get rid of.