| "Almost all of the wars and trouble in the region are a result of the current national borders having been imposed on the continent by colonialists who divided up the spoils, rather than being based on local tribal affiliations." Yeah, that's what you're supposed to think. No shame in that. Most people barely have time to learn the official excuses, let alone dig around for the actual story. Actually, Occam has a simpler explanation: all the wars and trouble in the region are the result of decolonialization, which is what we call the process by which the British, French and Belgian empires were confiscated by the US and transferred from colonial administration to post-colonial aidocracy. This is sometimes called "independence," but by any objective indicator post-colonial Africa is more, not less, dependent on the outside world. "Third World" forms of government also owe much less to indigenous structures than the colonial regimes - for instance, the Indian Raj was much more similar to Moghul India than the postcolonial democratic welfare state. It also worked a lot better - surprise. The writers you've been reading are institutional defenders of decolonialization. But try Occam's Razor on for size. Before decolonialization, not a peep is heard from the would-be aidocrats about how these countries are going to be completely screwed up once the Europeans leave. No, the "party line" is that the Europeans are at fault for not industrializing West Africa, etc, and instead retaining an agricultural and artisanal economy. And, of course, not employing enough Harvard-educated natives in government. As soon as the transition in power is accomplished - not at all a spontaneous event, but driven by US diplomatic pressure - the Third World falls to crap. The steel mills in the jungle are all white elephants. The Harvard-educated natives are all "wa-Benzis." And the aidocrats responsible turn to... blaming the Europeans they confiscated Africa from. Congo is a good example. You'll notice that your official Congo sources skate really lightly over the period of Belgian rule between the Congo Free State and "independence." There's a reason for that. Rescued from the memory hole, here's the first paragraph of a Time Magazine article about the Congo in 1955: "In the Belgian Congo last week massed tom-tom drummers practiced a welcome tattoo. Prosperous Negro shopkeepers climbed up wooden ladders and draped the Congolese flag (a golden star on a blue field) from lampposts and triumphal arches set up along Boulevard Albert I, the spanking concrete highway that bisects the capital city of Leopoldville. In far-off mission churches, encircled by the rain forest that stretches through Belgian territory from the Atlantic to the Mountains of the Moon, choirs of Bantu children rehearsed the Te Deum. African regiments drilled, jazz bands blared in..." The rest used to be online but now it's paywalled: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,866343,00.h... (Much) longer discussion: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr... |