controversial question - Has there ever been a successful independant black nation?

[buckie]

this question isnt based on any racist belief on my behalf, it comes from reading the book below. Basically everything is turned on its head in the Congo, grandparents tell their grandchildren about the olden days when they had cars and televisions and electricity and law and order and all today generation have is a return to the stone age.
Theres an interesting passage in the book when a Malaysian muslim gives a racist tirade about black africa and how the liberal west absolves Africa of any blame in its decay by focusing on the impact of colonialism and post colonialism and subsequent dictactorships. He points out that Malaysia and Indonesia both suffered terribly under colonialism but are both now part of the modern world.

This has got me thinking, has there ever been a successful independant black majority nation?

 

[Jack]

It depends on how dark you want to go.
.
The Egyptians had a fair o' run of sucess a wee while ago.

 

[buckie]

It depends on how dark you want to go.
.
The Egyptians had a fair o' run of sucess a wee while ago.

yeah but they are Arabs not black.

Im talking sub saharan african or any of the overseas countries populated by the dependants of black Africans

Its not that hard to understand really, its hard to ask and hard to answer though.

 

[persevered]

It depends on how dark you want to go.

Maybe this will help

Give us a starting point anyway.

 

[1875]

Maybe this will help

Give us a starting point anyway.

Hoy! Where is Cleveland Brown, my favourite at the moment?

 

[egb_hibs]

Maybe this will help

Give us a starting point anyway.

Very good.

It's not very difficult though; Buckie said sub saharan Africa, so put away your dulux charts and man up and answer an awkward question.

 

[egb_hibs]

To answer your question Buckie, if by independent nation you mean modern nation states, then you are talking about the post colonial era which hasn't been a bed of roses. However, it's not altogether surprising given that subsaharan Africa was in the stone age prior to colonialism, and we cut and ran and left only tiny handfuls of educated africans.

In short, it remains early days, but given that modern nations are often pasted over ancient tribal systems, I'm not expecting a quick turnaround. Colonial guilt causes us to partially acknowledge this but also to be strangely blind to the corollorary; without colonialism their would simply be those tribal systems, fighting each other, selling each other into slavery and disappearing by the village full, like the unobserved tree falling in the forest, as waves of disease of crop blights passed through.

It took european thousands of years to get from that stage to modernity, it's not going to happen in africa overnight, which over those 1000s of years had not developed much in the way of civilisation itself, what there was, being brought in by Islam.

 

[vasco de gama]

yeah but they are Arabs not black.

Im talking sub saharan african or any of the overseas countries populated by the dependants of black Africans

Its not that hard to understand really, its hard to ask and hard to answer though.

The fairly recent BBC series "Lost Kingdoms of Africa" showed strong evidence for many successful independent black nations. A major point in this series was it was the spread of the Shara that was a primary cause of these nations eventually failing.

Eventually all nations seem to fail - look at how mighty Great Britain has failed, recovered, failed again and failed some more over the last 250 years. Spain, France, Japan, Russia, The USSR and now the good ole US of A all seem to have failed to some degree or other.

What even classes as successful? I did a course with a very bitter and conspiracy obsessed black professor who argued that Haiti was a great example of a successful independent black nation as they defeated the French, The British and the Americans during the early years of the republic. Of course everything went massively tits up very quickly but how long does something have to last for it to be a successful? Hibs fans tend to start singing from the rooftops after 2 wins in a row and the jumbos are a massive successful club despite being in huge debt, having a cr@p ground and only winning 2 major honours in the last 47 years.

I think for modern sub Saharan Africa it is too close to the end of colonialism to gauge success. Also the impact of climate and the continual struggle just to get food on these nations makes it hard to measure success compared to western nations.

 

[O'Driscoll]

EGB, first let me congratulate you on the picture in your signature, as a former skinhead it is good to see a representation that doesn't equate Nazism.

Secondly, I don't think we have properly debated what it takes to make African states successful, we have always went for simplistic colonial/post colonial discussion on who's to blame. I think though, that some African states do better than others, Ghana I'm told is doing much better than the regional superpower Nigeria despite vastly inferior wealth.

Perhaps it would be wiser of the west to measure success, not on our terms but on theirs, i.e. are they happy with their lot? if so, butt out! if not, what can we do to help.

 

[buckie]

i suppose what makes a "successful" nation is having electricity, being able to feed it people, having justice and the rule of law. Some would say democracy but im not sure that had to be part of the equation.

I making this clear though now, this isnt a racist question, I aknowledge their are hundreds of millions of successful and inflential people of black African origin all over the world. I believe one of them is even president of the United States. Its just there doesnt seem to be an abundance of people of this calibre in some African nations. Of course another argument could be that the transition from colonialism to free rule takes many generations and is always tainted by corruption. It does seem to have occurred a lot quicker outside of Africa though.

 

[EA2007]

The Italians have done OK for themselves

 

[GordonTurnbull]

Some of the Caribean countries do OK for themselves in my opinion (not Haiti by the way!!!!Absolute shithole before the recent catstrophe and don't see that changing any time soon). That just kind of leaves sub-saharan Africa. I will only speak for Nigeria though. A good point was made earlier about electricity etc. The Nigerian government is about to sell off PHCN (Power Holding Company of Nigeria)which distuibutes power. They had their name changed a few years ago from NEPA (Nigerian Energy and Power) or something like that. Anyway, will it get any better? No. Atavistic greed and corruption will see to that.

Latest figures I saw, they produce around 2.5 million barrels of oil per day,of that they export about 2.2 million barrels. Why, they need it themselves. Unfortunately there are no refineries capable of processing that amount, therefore it all has to be re-imported costing a bloody fortune. We are building a gas to liquid plant. An investment of 6 Billion dollars in the Niger Delta (soon to go to 8 billion but don't tell Chevron!!). Is this going to help the indigenes who live along the river beside where we are building it? Living with no power, no sewage and no running water? No. The only benefits they will see is the infrastructure and schools etc that we leave as a heritage if you like. The diesel, naptha and condensate the plant produce will have to be exported as it is too high a grade for common use. What will happen? More pipelines vandalized to steal the stuff resulting in more of the poor buggers dying when the pipelines explode.

October 1st is the 50th Nigerian Independence Day. 50 year is not a lot of time in the history of man I know, but it should have been long enough for successive governments to realise what was needed and do something about it.

Will it ever happen? I personally doubt it. I am not a supporter of Colonialism at all, but if Nigeria was still a British dependancy then the answer to the OP would have been a resounding YES.

 

[Nex]

This has got me thinking, has there ever been a successful independant black majority nation?

South Africa?

I mean I know only 74% of the population are Black but that's still a majority.

i suppose what makes a "successful" nation is having electricity, being able to feed it people, having justice and the rule of law. Some would say democracy but im not sure that had to be part of the equation.

Food and saftey are all that really matter in the grand sceme of things. Justice and rule of law is a bit of a difficult one because many people have different views on what is acceptable Justice and fair rule of Law.

Certainly the nations which are or have recently been in a state of war, be it internal or external, can't really be expected to have much normality. Sadly between wars, dictatorships, political conflicts, big corporations and everything else very few sub-saharan African nations have had much of a chance to help their people have a better standard of living.

 

[egb_hibs]

EGB, first let me congratulate you on the picture in your signature, as a former skinhead it is good to see a representation that doesn't equate Nazism.

Secondly, I don't think we have properly debated what it takes to make African states successful, we have always went for simplistic colonial/post colonial discussion on who's to blame. I think though, that some African states do better than others, Ghana I'm told is doing much better than the regional superpower Nigeria despite vastly inferior wealth.

Perhaps it would be wiser of the west to measure success, not on our terms but on theirs, i.e. are they happy with their lot? if so, butt out! if not, what can we do to help.

A bit too relativistic for me O'D. Vicious civil / tribal wars, with occasional cannibalism and black magic thrown in, starvation, disease including rampant HIV+, corruption and cronyism on an epic scale... It is the worst kind of relativism to conclude that this is success if the africans are 'happy with it'. This kind of moral defeatism seems to have crept in with the dawning realisation that the fantasies of progressives won't simply wash away such problems.

I absolutely reject that it follows from that that we abandon pragmatic efforts at incremental improvement. I also reject the poisonous moral dead end we have got ourselves into where we don't have the courage to make value judgements where the taboos of PC are in play.

The human cost resulting from this decadence is a bitter repudiation of our folly.

 

[Croxleyhibby]

Gordon, as you know I lived in Lagos (Ikoyi) for 12 years as a boy and well remember the pre-Biafra period and the Yakubo Gowan period as being a tumultous time. My father was given 24 hours to leave with all of his money remaining in Nigeria only to be asked back 2 years later as it had all gone tits up. The only good thing I have to say about any Britsh ruled countries from the past is that in engineering terms we built fabulous infrastructure while we were in charge. Look at Dubai now, plenty of shiny buildings but absolutely no thought has been given to water electricty, sewage or food. I have a great fondness for Africa as I do for the Middle East but there is no denying that corruption stops any real progress. In terms of sub saharan countries that have been generally stable over a long period I would say Ghana (another country i have lived in) is about the best example.

 

[Nex]

Cameroon is pretty stable politically. Their healthcare is dire but they have pretty good education.
Though naturally many of those who do well through the education system see no reason to stay and leave the country as soon as they can.

 

[egb_hibs]

South Africa?

I mean I know only 74% of the population are Black but that's still a majority.

I once attended a thing on Africa at the book festival. It was quite depressing as the consensus from the panel of 'experts' was that below the sahara the continent was in a historically unique process of regression. The exception was seth efrika.

As you might imagine at such an event liberal middle class edinburgh was the audience and their was a most ridiculous elephant in the room moment when these guys tried to explain south african exceptionalism;

It's because they've got the only developed middle class. Why's that? Because they've had the only proper industrialisation. Then there's a collective moment of awkwardness and the next "why's that" is not posed.

But I think we know.

 

[HaarlemShuffler]

yeah, and if the Nazis had managed to invade and take over the UK, you would all have better roads and infrastructure in general, no doubt.

There are two things to consider in colonialism:

- Before the last century, there were no international agreements, no international law, to consider before any one country invaded another with a view to colonising it. It was tribal power in action (or dictator power in many cases) and as such was on a par with how it happens with animal populations in nature. Now anyone colonising another country is in the wrong afa international law is concerned (I know, in most cases, not all are signed up) unless it is a mutually agreed plan.

- Britain (and other colonising nations in history) may well have left behind better technology in general but leaving just that helps who exactly? They were built in the main for the coloniser's benefit at the time of colonialisation with the odd school or municipal building chucked in once in a while for the locals. Being colonised for many years in a row (centuries even) builds up a whipped-dog mentality amongst the locals. So it is no shock when they are finally free of the yoke that they go back to where they were when the invaders came in and start over again, just enjoying the fact that they can. I think people happily forget just how much loot was gained from Britain's colonies, vast amounts, huge richness which still survives in the heritage of some better-off families now in UK. The cultures which were left again on their own - not unlike the Iraqis will soon be - were not strong economic states until the technology of the coloniser freed up the local resources for return to GB for profit. Asking them to suddenly adopt and use the technologies and mentalities thrust upon them unasked is a bit much I think.

The Romans invaded Britain a couple of centuries BC and left in AD 43. The dark ages followed. The secret of making concrete was lost...

Getten Sie den Pikture?

 

[egb_hibs]

yeah, and if the Nazis had managed to invade and take over the UK, you would all have better roads and infrastructure in general, no doubt.

There are two things to consider in colonialism:

- Before the last century, there were no international agreements, no international law, to consider before any one country invaded another with a view to colonising it. It was tribal power in action (or dictator power in many cases) and as such was on a par with how it happens with animal populations in nature. Now anyone colonising another country is in the wrong afa international law is concerned (I know, in most cases, not all are signed up) unless it is a mutually agreed plan.

- Britain (and other colonising nations in history) may well have left behind better technology in general but leaving just that helps who exactly? They were built in the main for the coloniser's benefit at the time of colonialisation with the odd school or municipal building chucked in once in a while for the locals. Being colonised for many years in a row (centuries even) builds up a whipped-dog mentality amongst the locals. So it is no shock when they are finally free of the yoke that they go back to where they were when the invaders came in and start over again, just enjoying the fact that they can. I think people happily forget just how much loot was gained from Britain's colonies, vast amounts, huge richness which still survives in the heritage of some better-off families now in UK. The cultures which were left again on their own - not unlike the Iraqis will soon be - were not strong economic states until the technology of the coloniser freed up the local resources for return to GB for profit. Asking them to suddenly adopt and use the technologies and mentalities thrust upon them unasked is a bit much I think.

The Romans invaded Britain a couple of centuries BC and left in AD 43. The dark ages followed. The secret of making concrete was lost...

Getten Sie den Pikture?

I think so; you are saying that africa is descending into it's natural state of dark age? Hav I gutten die cliched donotigveafuckenaboutthedarkiemenchlongasmywibevalconsienceisappeased kerborinkspiel, hampsteadenfuhrer?

 

[buckie]

No. Simply, no.

Since the end of apartheid South African regression has proved disasterous; HIV/AIDS, tribal unrest, deindustrialisation etc etc have all been massive problems and to be honest it's the same right across the continent. The end of colonialism effectivly meant the end of infastructure across Africa. Unlike say Malaysia rule in Africa never focused on the creation of a nation state or any sense of national identity. Similarly although Christianity was introduced it was a facade; religious differences even across small distances are pretty massive. Add in a traditional emphasis on the land and migration and maintaining a nation as we understand it becomes almost impossible. Colonialism isn't the reason why Africa's in such dire straits now, tradition is and decolonisation has (in my opnion) proved ravenous; exposing just how quickly nations on the rise can fall apart without a collective sense of self and traditional values.

great post

 

[Bambino]

Nigeria!

That country is full of success stories and millionaires!

All you need to do is send them your bank details and they will sort you out too :approve:

 

[HaarlemShuffler]

I think so; you are saying that africa is descending into it's natural state of dark age? Hav I gutten die cliched donotigveafuckenaboutthedarkiemenchlongasmywibevalconsienceisappeased kerborinkspiel, hampsteadenfuhrer?

I presume therefore there was nothing in my post that you disagreed with, unterleutnant EGB vonderUber ReactionistischesRechterAllesIsSchlechtUndMeinMutterAuch.

You can comment all you want on the world and the situations that have arisen, but a facetious forum post has not yet been proven to heal all ills.

Why are you so obsessed with what can go wrong and what will fail?
Where do you get your inspiration if it's all negative?

and doesn't that tell you something?

 

[egb_hibs]

I presume therefore there was nothing in my post that you disagreed with, unterleutnant EGB vonderUber ReactionistischesRechterAllesIsSchlechtUndMeinMutterAuch.

As I have said before to Al, one thing I am not is a reactionary. Reactionaries wish to restore political orders from the past. Today the most common reactionary position own encounters is the socialist one.

You can comment all you want on the world and the situations that have arisen, but a facetious forum post has not yet been proven to heal all ills.

Straw man.

Why are you so obsessed with what can go wrong and what will fail?

Well I'm not. But I am concerned with silly ideas which threaten the fragile fabric of civilisation. Why am I concerned with that? Because when it fails loads of people die or otherwise suffer.

Where do you get your inspiration if it's all negative?

Crikey, bit of a reversal. I find it nauseating that, to use this current example, Africa's problems are unlikely ever to be given a fully candid and serious analysis, because of the taboos of precious white liberals. That some of the same people are given to wittering on endlessly about reason being prized above all, while propounding a world view based on a tissue of dogma and delusion, just pours salt into the wound. Because this stuff matters; whether they're piling up on the streets of London or the plains of Africa, it seems that black corpses are less important than preserving the prejudices of pampered whiteys.

Bollocks to that.

and doesn't that tell you something?

Yes, it tells me you are confused; the things I view negatively are destructive things. And there's nowt wrong with that.

Although I suspect you are also attributing as negative, honest accounts of what is staring us in the face, and my failure to assent to the miasma of comforting delusion that ensures nothing ever gets fixed.

 

[Archie]

It's because they've got the only developed middle class. Why's that? Because they've had the only proper industrialisation. Then there's a collective moment of awkwardness and the next "why's that" is not posed.

But I think we know.

Why do you think this is the case?

 

[egb_hibs]

Why do you think this is the case?

I think it's because the white ruling class carried out this industrialisation.

What do you think?

 

[wee 162]

The US are pretty successful, and their entire early economy was built on black slave labour.

 

[buckie]

The US are pretty successful, and their entire early economy was built on black slave labour.

thats a wild sweeping genralisation and im sure many native americans would have something to say about that.

 

[Archie]

I think it's because the white ruling class carried out this industrialisation.

What do you think?

Not an expert on this, but I think it's very easy to slip in to the race angle. I think you could argue that the following were very important:
- historically independent early and not locked into a colonialist relationship
- ready made middle class who wanted to be part of the country
- high level of exportable goods
- access to capital that was not available to other parts of the continent
- excellent location
- latterly politically protected because of cold war politics

Not sure about industrialisation - do you mean the mechanisation of extraction of primary products?

Now it was a white middle class that drove a lot of this - but this is a very different explanation to the simple race one. Difficult to see any other country in sub-Saharan Africa that had all of these advantages.

 

[wee 162]

thats a wild sweeping genralisation and im sure many native americans would have something to say about that.

I'm sure many white Americans would have something to say about it as well. But it's not a generalisation, it's very specific. The agricultural base of the US was built on slave labour. That was the initial economic basis for the US state. It was the primary driver in the US becoming relatively rich and funded their expansion west. Which in turn led to the taking over and colonisation of resource rich areas which couldn't have happened without that economic base.

 

[buckie]

I'm sure many white Americans would have something to say about it as well. But it's not a generalisation, it's very specific. The agricultural base of the US was built on slave labour. That was the initial economic basis for the US state. It was the primary driver in the US becoming relatively rich and funded their expansion west. Which in turn led to the taking over and colonisation of resource rich areas which couldn't have happened without that economic base.

you said "their entire early economy was built on black slave labour"

this is not true at all, quite a bit of the early american economy was built on displacing and killing native americans and stealing all their natural resources.

 

[egb_hibs]

Not an expert on this, but I think it's very easy to slip in to the race angle. I think you could argue that the following were very important:
- historically independent early and not locked into a colonialist relationship
- ready made middle class who wanted to be part of the country
- high level of exportable goods
- access to capital that was not available to other parts of the continent
- excellent location
- latterly politically protected because of cold war politics

Not sure about industrialisation - do you mean the mechanisation of extraction of primary products?

Now it was a white middle class that drove a lot of this - but this is a very different explanation to the simple race one. Difficult to see any other country in sub-Saharan Africa that had all of these advantages.

I don't believe it's to do with race, but I believe it is substantially related to culture.

There are any number of resource rich sub saharan countries. The reality is that where colonialism withdraw things began to regress. The southern tip of africa were the last redoubt of (rather foul) colonial and / or white ruling classes. I think it's head in the sand time to deny the connection.

 

[Archie]

I don't believe it's to do with race, but I believe it is substantially related to culture.

There are any number of resource rich sub saharan countries. The reality is that where colonialism withdraw things began to regress. The southern tip of africa were the last redoubt of (rather foul) colonial and / or white ruling classes. I think it's head in the sand time to deny the connection.

The points I made were that there were a substantial number of differences between South Africa and other sub- Saharan countries that help explain why it is so much more successful. You are reading white and colonial as the same. in South Africa they were settlers - very committed to the country in a way that didn't happen elsewhere. Nothing head in the sand in what I'm saying, I'm simply setting out a number of key economic factors that are not simply about race. Factors that are often ignored by those who would jump to a racially based conclusion. Wilfully igored in my view.

 

[egb_hibs]

The points I made were that there were a substantial number of differences between South Africa and other sub- Saharan countries that help explain why it is so much more successful. You are reading white and colonial as the same. in South Africa they were settlers - very committed to the country in a way that didn't happen elsewhere. Nothing head in the sand in what I'm saying, I'm simply setting out a number of key economic factors that are not simply about race. Factors that are often ignored by those who would jump to a racially based conclusion. Wilfully igored in my view.

Fine. But the point remains that sub saharan african countries have been made successful by either colonialists or other white ruling classes.

WRT to the OP they've never become so under black rule, and have generally gone backwards when power has been wrested from the whiteys. That doesn't mean those regimes weren't foul, but it remains true. The truth is uncomfortable. To take it in another context to make the point; one wouldn't dispute that the CP industrialised an agrarian russia. One would only argue with those that seem unwilling to confront they killed millions to do so.

Bemusingly one suspects that some who would defend the achievement while denying the cost vis a vis russia, would take precisely the opposite stance in africa. Dogma closes minds.