Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Thanks for your question to r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Because European colonialism never ended.
It just refined itself as a proxy system, interfering in African affairs when necessary.
Ever wonder why the likes of Patrice Lamumba and Thomas Sankara get offed?
That's a reason, but not the only reason. It's largely because of colonialism, of course. Colonies were pretty heavily exploited, the borders often made very little sense, many of them never were allowed/encouraged to develop modern economies, not a lot of the people living there had an opportunity to get educated, economic inequality was really bad, the transatlantic slave trade stymied the development of a lot of groups/areas, in a lot of places certain ethnic groups were favored over others, etc. These are all recipes for poverty and instability that are direct results of European colonialism. There are a handful of purely geographic issues also, although I doubt they're as consequential, mainly a lack of good ports, poor soil in some areas, a lot of hard to traverse mountains and jungles, and a few other things. Post-colonial interference from the previous colonizers has done some damage, but i don't think nearly as much as the original colonization itself did. Also, it's important to keep in mind that there are 54 countries in Africa, each with their own unique experiences, and the importance of each of these factors is going to vary a lot from one place to another. One country might be screwed almost entirely because of foreign meddling, another might be because of ethnic conflict, a third might be just because of geographical factors.
Not going to mention that all of those things happened well before any white person set foot on Africa? Without colonial rulers to be united against, grudges that predate colonialism resurface. But go on, make it the white man's fault.
That doesn't answer why widespread violence occurred in the Congo the moment it gained independence under Patrice Lumumba, or why Thomas Sankara was a dictator.
Even the most fervant neoliberals do not paint Thomas Sankara as a dictator. You need a lot more education in this area.
The problem that Congo and a lot of the newly independent African countries faced in the wake of decolonization was that colonisation was so brutal and authoritative that no political activity could essentially develop in these areas and the newly independent countries had to deal with forming a political legitimacy without a political base. Patrice Lumumba came into power due to a political vacuum, and countries where the populace is massively apolitical are more likely to fall into the trap of authoritarianism and violence and that's what ended up happening in Congo as well.
As for Sankara, I'm not entirely sure where you got your information, but I don't know anyone who seriously considers Sankara to be a dictator.
The problem that Congo and a lot of the newly independent African countries faced in the wake of decolonization was that colonisation was so brutal and authoritative that no political activity could essentially develop in these areas and the newly independent countries had to deal with forming a political legitimacy without a political base. Patrice Lumumba came into power due to a political vacuum, and countries where the populace is massively apolitical are more likely to fall into the trap of authoritarianism and violence and that's what ended up happening in Congo as well.
The leadership that usually replaces a coloniser is sometimes remarkably similar to the coloniser. That's because the coloniser only talks to a political leadership that speaks their language and understand their culture. See how the communists in India weren't involved in the dialogue but English speaking, western educated nationalist leaders from Congress and AIML were the only one the British talked to in India. This is a similar case in Africa and something Fanon points to as well.
As for Sankara, I'm not entirely sure where you got your information, but I don't know anyone who seriously considers Sankara to be a dictator.
"We know that in the developed countries the bourgeois dictatorship is the product of the bourgeoisie's economic power. In the underdeveloped countries, however, the leader represents the moral force behind which the gaunt and destitute bourgeoisie of the young nation decides to grow rich.
The people, who for years have seen him or heard him speak, who have followed from afar, in a kind of dream, the leader's tribulations with the colonial powers, spontaneously place their trust in this patriot. Before independence, the leader, as a rule, personified the aspirations of the people-independence, political freedom, and national dignity. But in the aftermath of independence, far from actually embodying the needs of the people, far from establishing himself as the promoter of the actual dignity of the people, which is founded on bread, land, and putting the country back into their sacred hands, the leader will unmask his inner purpose: to be the CEO of the company of profiteers composed of a national bourgeoisie intent only on getting the most out of the situation.
Honest and sincere though he may often be, in objective terms the leader is the virulent champion of the now combined interests of the national bourgeoisie and the ex-colonial companies. His honesty, which is purely a frame of mind, gradually crumbles. The leader is so out of touch with the masses that he manages to convince himself they resent his authority and question the services he has rendered to the country. The leader is a harsh judge of the ingratitude of the masses and every day a little more resolutely sides with the exploiters. He then knowingly turns into an accomplice of the young bourgeoisie that wallows in corruption and gratification."
Frantz Fanon (The Wretched of the Earth)
http://www.ricorso.net/rx/library/criticism/guest/Fanon_F/Fanon_F1.htm
In short this study, from 1961, perfectly predicts this phenomenon with stunning accuracy. Since colonialization in Africa was so bad, naturally the healing process will be to the same extent in the same way a broken foot is harder to heal than a stubbed toe.
Comment removed by moderator
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Comment removed by moderator
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Comment removed by moderator
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Comment removed by moderator
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
There is a lot that happened during and after decolonization in Africa post-WWII (Herbst, 2014; Kennedy, 2016; Lee & Paine, 2019). Some of these are:
Decolonization was often violent. Colonizing states did not want to give up their empires after World War II, as these were a source of income and prestige. This led to multiple wars and armed rebellions between different African militias and the colonial armies plus European minorities living in the colonies. Examples here are the Algerian War of Independence of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya. These wars only ended when it became clear to the populations in Europe that the rebels could not be defeated by force anymore or that it would just cost too much.
The militias and their leaders who won independence legitimized their rule over the newly independent country by referencing their armed struggle against the colonizers. Even if elections were organized and if these were somewhat free and fair, it was often this militia and their leader that won those as they were the best organized or because they were seen as the main liberators. In subsequent years and elections, many of these men refused to step down after their terms ended though, preferring to keep ruling instead.
Most newly independent states inherited borders that had been arbitrarily drawn by the colonial powers and contained many different tribes within their territory. This led to various cross-border disputes, seccessionist conflicts or civil wars between different tribes. Some colonizers had a practice of elevating a specific minority tribe over others and ruling indirectly through them by only educating them or appointing them to the colonial state's administration or officer positions in the local forces. Because this tribe was a numerical minority, fully equal voting rights would permanently lock them out of power for the forseeable future, giving them the incentive to resist democratization. Historical discrimination also made different tribes suspicious of the others. Beyond that, there was often little national identification with the young state. Many voted thus for their tribal kin in elections, also with the idea that they would be rewarded by their tribe's leader in return. But this locked minority tribes out of power at the same time.
The economic position of the post-colonial state was often weak. The colonizer would no longer pay the costs of local administration and law enforcement. Local industry owned by colonizer companies would either be closed down or negotiated a special exemption to not get nationalized. The colonial state was often a purely extractive one: take as much of the special domestic resources from the hinterland and funnel these via the main port city to the mother country. After independence this was still the structure of the economy. The independent state often had to negotiate access to the mother country's market again. Its economic monoculture and dependence on a few primary resources made it vulnerable to price changes in these resources. Oil and others are often called a resource curse (Ross, 2015). Accumulation of state debt made the young states also vulnerable on the capital markets and to capital flight.
Superpower competition. During and after decolonization was the time of the Cold War. The USA and USSR were unwilling to engage in war with each other directly, but were willing to provide funds and arms to proxy groups to combat the Communist/Capitalist enemies in the Third World such as Africa. A minor rebel group might thus get substantial armed support if they declare they are against the sitting Communist/Capitalist government, fuelling a civil war. There was a drop in African wars after the Cold War ended (Kalyvas & Balcells, 2010).
Fragile and failed states. African states often have large territories, but relatively small populations and weak state presence outside the capitals and main cities. How much state presence there is differs from country to country, but rebels can often disappear in peripheral areas or across the border in a different country. Inability to protect the local population leads to more local militias organizing and streams of refugees or displaced persons. It also offers terrorist groups a safe haven to hide and train.
The population pyramid and lack of economic growth. African countries have seen massive increases in population numbers over time. However, a lack of rapid economic growth has limited economic opportunity and potential for education. A massive group of young, unemployed and undereducated men makes war much more likely (Fearon & Laitin, 2003; Collier & Hoeffler, 2004). Warlords make use of child soldiers to create loyal warriors who have known nothing but war. And once a war has occurred, it tends to happen again even if a temporary peace is reached.
Comment removed by moderator
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Comment removed by moderator
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Comment removed by moderator
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Here's my citation link:
https://youtu.be/wXhTHyIgQ_U?si=HnD8oAmKxj-c_jlv
It's a metaphor for the nature of time.
African civilization is beset by narcissists who treat the land and people as resources to exploit; they are unsane humans who have lost their connection to Life, and exist as parasites to feed their own selfish desires.
This is true across the world of course; but in Africa there are sadly less people who are able to organize a cultural resistance to this type of corruption in government because of the advent of modern military hardware. Those who would normally rise in rebellion in past eras are cowed by fear of obliteration by artillery and bombs. The good people are left with only the courts to undo the work of dictators, and the courts, just as in Russia and their close allies, are rather unjust and exist merely to cloak the rule of the dictators in a veneer of respectability.
The situation will only worsen until a change becomes inevitable as a consequence of multiple factors converging over the next several decades.
Their only hope is to embrace the way of peace laid out by the venerable teacher Bodhidharma so long ago.
Lol… why not ask about the Ottoman Colonization genius? Which exists to this very day?
You people are insane literally. Europeans attempt to colonize Africa lasted about 50yrs which coincided with malaria treatment.
By the time Europeans had tried to colonize Africa, the North Atlantic Slave Trade had been outlawed lol.
99% of the time in human history, slaves were enslaved by the same race.
Africans invented slavery and exported it as its ONLY innovation in human history.
“Slave” literally means “white person”… as more whites were enslaved by Africans throughout slavery’s history than the other way around.
The genocide of Rwanda was going on well before Europeans got there.
African enslavers were much more violent than what Europeans did. It is well documented that European slave companies investigated the “how” these slaves got to the coast because of the brutality of dominant African kingdoms. The problem was a white man could not survive for very long on the continent of Africa because of tropical diseases.
Most conflicts in Africa were no different from what went on with peoples in the Americas.
Try doing some research instead of swallowing corrupt academic lies.
https://youtu.be/lyPWjjWs7-w?si=KdCfP_413GbMTN20
Edit for those who have no point but to denigrate the character of another like a NAZI PIG:
Citation is a world renowned economist and social philosopher from Harvard.
The Demokkkrat battle cry: “My struggle” or Mein Kampf they say like psychos.
cites youtube lol
Wrong, cited an expert on the matter, a world renowned economist and social philosopher from Harvard.
Swallow it down chump!
What makes this Harvard guy different from the "corrupt academic lies"?
“Humans cannot see because some children are born blind” is an example of nuance making false a distinction.
Do you know what nuance is buffoon?
That’s rhetorical. You don’t.
Gender is non-binary because some men are delusional.
Of course humans can see even though some children are born blind.
Of course gender is binary even though some men are delusional.
Only a psychopath believes nuance makes false a distinction.
You are not the brightest bulb in the box now are you?
Did you miss a zero? 500 years would make some sense beginning with the Portuguese settlements in Africa in 1420. But you’d be ignoring the African colonies established by Alexander, the Roman Empire, and pre-Alexander 8th century BC colonies.
Why are racists so ahistorical and a-scientific?
Says literal dumbshit who cannot discern man from woman without a fat white man in a dress.
You don’t know man from woman yet I am an evil racist???
Wow, talk about a conspiracy theorist psychopath.
Take a reading comp course or two dumbshit.
You don’t know anything about history or science psycho.
I said continent of Africa to imply inland.
I mentioned “coastal”.
No wonder you swallow lies like a good little NAZI pig.
Oh so you’re too fucking dumb to understand that both Angola is in continental Africa and the Canary Islands are part of Africa. I get it. The racist brain just isn’t capable of advanced thought.
I guess the fact that Alexandria is named after a European guy who controlled the city didn’t help shake the cobwebs out. Stupidity abounds.
Honestly, I can imagine being as dumb as you appear to be.
Since you edited your comment let me explain: I never called you evil. I called you stupid. You’re stupid because you think that race exists and distinguishes people in a way that’s unique from distinctions between any individuals. That’s because you’re not capable of complex thought. You need to make broad, inaccurate, irrational generalizations because without them you can’t cope. It’s also incidentally why you’re unsuccessful at anything meaningful.
So Portuguese equates to “all of europe”, you truly are a racist pig.
Watch the video dumbshit. The Portuguese are what’s called nuance.
Humans cannot see because some children are born blind.
Whoops, sorry, I meant gender is non-binary because some men are delusional.
Of course nuance makes false a distinction in the mind of a psychopath ape.
FYI: The Phoenicians were white proved by genetic studies.
It’s amazing how far people will reach to justify racism.
Dude. Self examine.
I bet you cannot discern man from woman without a white man in a dress.
Let me guess psycho, “a black man is the new face of white supremacy”
You are one seriously delusional psycho NAZI stooge.
Thomas Sowell is black, you psychotic hairless ape racist.
I bet you would gas progressives who know how to identify man from woman like any 2yr old can.
You seem highly educated and totally sane.
Says the dumbshit who believes “humans cannot see because some children are born blind”.
Or “gender is non-binary because some men are delusional”
Stupidity is a privilege.
“Educated” doesn’t mean intelligence dumbshit.
Nuance doesn’t make false a distinction you psycho NAZI stooge.
Of course humans can see even though some children are born blind.
Of course gender is binary even though Demokkkrats are literal psychopaths.
And of course the white man could not survive malaria on the continent of Africa, you dumbshit.