Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2016, 03:49 AM   #21

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,470

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Enlarging the reasoning:

we've got two main types of former Western colonies.

1) as I was mentioning, the former colonies which have seen the settlement of Western populations who have become the great majority, putting in minority the native populations.

Generally these colonies have developed well [when not very well], in good substance because they have been and are Western countries.

2) former colonies where Western population haven't settled in so great numbers to substitute the native populations [or in some cases native and not native together: in Northern Africa, Islamic powers had already colonized and Arab populations had settled as well].

These colonies haven't acquired a Western model of development after the end of colonialism. I guess that also anti-colonial feelings have played a role in this, but overall it has been a matter of corruption, bad government and post-colonialism.

I know Senegalese migrants who work here in Italy. They claim that Senegal people doesn't enjoy the money coming from the exploitation of the natural resources of the country because of the way their government deals with international corporations [and now they have found oil and natural gas, I cannot imagine what will happen ...].

** A particular case
South Africa is a particular case: Westerns have settled in great numbers there, enough to impose their dominion and their model of development to the country. We all know how white South Africans did this. After the end of the Apartheid, the knew South Africa is trying and following that path of development and it promises well.
I agree with a lot of what you are pointing out here, but I think that it is very important that it is emphasized that a "Western model of development" is the key word here. This does not mean that this model was better for native African populations, but it was a model which was completely different to native Africans. And yes, this would also play a major role in the instability of former colonies in the aftermath of decolonization.
The Cell is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2016, 03:50 AM   #22

Ighayere's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 711

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Point and case is Ethopia which was not colonized, but briefly occupied (4 years, that's less than some countries in Europe during WW2) and is doing worse than many countries in Africa which were colonized...
Ethiopia was ruled by a monarch who actually controlled the country, and then mismanaged it (leading to his overthrow), then it was ruled by a backwards communist regime, and also fought a war (which they couldn't really justify under modern political conventions, though they wouldn't have needed to give any such justification centuries ago) to control Eritrea to obtain a coastal outlet (so they wouldn't be landlocked), which they lost completely, while also having to deal with the underlying ethnic issues (Oromo rebellions, etc.) in their country. Not really a "typical" case at all, but actually a pretty unique case. For many centuries, Ethiopia was a great kingdom/empire with developed cities and towns, engaged heavily in international trade, and pretty much on par with states elsewhere around the world, and this is made absolutely clear in numerous historical documents of the past, from B.C. times to documents from the 1800s. However, modern Ethiopia is not an industrialized nation and is too far from being industrialized (though it is making a serious effort in that direction in recent times), so I don't see how a landlocked non-industrialized country which had to deal with communist rule, ethnic rebellions, and a failed gamble to get coastal land, is going to become developed quickly. They will become developed, but I don't see why anyone expects that it should happen so immediately.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 03:53 AM   #23

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,470

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
I think you are confusing things

Those "successful" cases are cases where the land in question was rich in all kinds of resources AND underpopulated.....

Underpopulation is not a success factor per se... For example Namibia is not a success though underpopulated, because it is essentially a desert ....
Namibia is actually one of the most stable and one of the most successful economies in all of Africa.

Remember that also benefited from being a colony of South Africa. They where actually called South West Africa until about 1990, when they received their independence from South Africa.
The Cell is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 04:08 AM   #24

Ighayere's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 711

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cell View Post
Namibia is actually one of the most stable and one of the most successful economies in all of Africa.

Remember that also benefited from being a colony of South Africa. They where actually called South West Africa until about 1990, when they received their independence from South Africa.
I think he was pointing out that Namibia is not a success by First World standards, which it is not. It is pretty much like other Third World African countries in terms of development.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 05:40 AM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,636

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
Ethiopia was ruled by a monarch who actually controlled the country, and then mismanaged it (leading to his overthrow), then it was ruled by a backwards communist regime, and also fought a war (which they couldn't really justify under modern political conventions, though they wouldn't have needed to give any such justification centuries ago) to control Eritrea to obtain a coastal outlet (so they wouldn't be landlocked), which they lost completely, while also having to deal with the underlying ethnic issues (Oromo rebellions, etc.) in their country. Not really a "typical" case at all, but actually a pretty unique case. For many centuries, Ethiopia was a great kingdom/empire with developed cities and towns, engaged heavily in international trade, and pretty much on par with states elsewhere around the world, and this is made absolutely clear in numerous historical documents of the past, from B.C. times to documents from the 1800s. However, modern Ethiopia is not an industrialized nation and is too far from being industrialized (though it is making a serious effort in that direction in recent times), so I don't see how a landlocked non-industrialized country which had to deal with communist rule, ethnic rebellions, and a failed gamble to get coastal land, is going to become developed quickly. They will become developed, but I don't see why anyone expects that it should happen so immediately.
The point is that Ethiopians were perfectly capable of "messing things up" (as per your post) on their own without any european interference.. So the case stands as a benchmark of "not colonized" vs "colonized"....

To become "industrialized" one must have resources.. Historically it has been : abundant water, abundant wood, easily accessible coal and iron... The latter may now be imported, but the first 2 or 3 are a must... Plus a strong agriculture that generates surpluses which can be reinvested...
I think Ethiopia is lacking in the above.. For example less than 10% of its area is forested (as opposed to 30%+ in most developed countries) and it has problems with water supply...
tomar is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 05:48 AM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,636

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cell View Post
Namibia is actually one of the most stable and one of the most successful economies in all of Africa.

Remember that also benefited from being a colony of South Africa. They where actually called South West Africa until about 1990, when they received their independence from South Africa.
GDP per capita is about $5 000 ... so higher than in many african countries but lower than in south africa or botswana

Remember this is a country of only 2.5 mio people covering over 800 000 sq km (this is 50% larger than the largest european country - bar Russia)... Its basically the population of a mid size city for a huge territory.

And it produces nothing sophisticated.. Some agriculture and lots of mining...

This is not a successful economy by any standard
tomar is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 05:49 AM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,636

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
I think he was pointing out that Namibia is not a success by First World standards, which it is not. It is pretty much like other Third World African countries in terms of development.
Indeed.... But again, the country is mostly a desert, so its probably difficult to do better....
tomar is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 06:08 AM   #28

Porter Rockwell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Outer Deseret
Posts: 349

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Oh please, reductio ad absurdum.
If Fairfax is referring to the invasions of Huns, Vandals, and so forth, then count me on Naomasa's side. Those happened too far in the past to be issues in this discussion and can only be dismissed as an irrelevant distraction.

If, on the other hand, he is referring to the much more recent migration of refugees, then that isn't an invasion and is also irrelevant.

Please, Lord, stick to points that pertain to the discussion.
Porter Rockwell is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 06:34 AM   #29

Ighayere's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 711

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
The point is that Ethiopians were perfectly capable of "messing things up" (as per your post) on their own without any european interference.. So the case stands as a benchmark of "not colonized" vs "colonized"....
Ethiopia isn't actually much worse off developmentally than some countries on the same continent that were colonized though, and its better off than some that were. At least if we're going by where Ethiopia is at in recent years.

My post was pointing out that the problem with using Ethiopia as a yardstick for "not colonized" vs "colonized" is that Ethiopia is a unique case and assuming that things like ethnic rebellions, failed invasions of other areas to acquire coastal lands, and a repressive communist regime would have taken root in all other colonized countries if they were not colonized doesn't make any sense. I certainly can't see west African Hausas (or most other Muslims in west Africa) going communist, for example. The reasons for Ethiopia's troubles stem from its specific situation.


Quote:
To become "industrialized" one must have resources.. Historically it has been : abundant water, abundant wood, easily accessible coal and iron... The latter may now be imported, but the first 2 or 3 are a must... Plus a strong agriculture that generates surpluses which can be reinvested...
I think Ethiopia is lacking in the above.. For example less than 10% of its area is forested (as opposed to 30%+ in most developed countries) and it has problems with water supply...
I agree that there are some issues which will make it harder for Ethiopia to develop at the same pace that western countries developed, but I don't think its the case that without these things it is impossible to industrialize.

But for the record, iron, coal and water are not an issue for Ethiopia. It has all of those in substantial amounts. Ethiopia was actually called the "water tower" of eastern Africa. What is wood essential for? I'm curious.

Last edited by Ighayere; November 24th, 2016 at 06:41 AM.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 06:57 AM   #30

Porter Rockwell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Outer Deseret
Posts: 349

Quote:
Originally Posted by peccavi View Post
... On the one hand there is the success of Singapore ...
Very good point. Hong Kong might be another example, although the future there could be compromised by Chinese colonial mismanagement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peccavi View Post
... But turning back to Le General, De Gaulle came to power ...
Another very good point. When I wrote my message, I was thinking of de Gaulle I, not de Gaulle II. It's interesting to contrast the two.
Porter Rockwell is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
colonies, undeveloped, western



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spain tries to keep colonies Joe Freeman Speculative History 9 August 30th, 2015 06:49 AM
Travel between colonies SallyFairfax American History 11 June 25th, 2013 03:24 PM
What colonies could have been kept? WeisSaul Speculative History 16 May 16th, 2012 02:00 AM
Just for former colonies :) sylla1 General History 24 April 12th, 2011 03:08 PM
American Colonies huskerguy77 History Book Reviews 5 June 7th, 2009 08:57 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.