Just how much were former colonies hurt by the departure of their European populations?

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,630
Benin City, Nigeria
As usual actual facts prove you wrong--note drought years (NB Drought does not mean "no rain", it means rainfall 0f 75% less than the historical average for the region or sub-region.
How could anyone be so wrong?
View attachment 22198View attachment 22198View attachment 22198
What exactly are you claiming here? That there was no drought in Zimbabwe in 1991-1992 because that particular article you've cited doesn't list it as a "drought event" going by its particular criteria? The article you've cited just seems to be inaccurate about droughts for Zimbabwe. I don't know of any credible source that says there wasn't a drought in Zimbabwe in 1991-1992, but the article you've cited seems to imply exactly that - that there wasn't a drought in Zimbawe in 1991-1992. So you should regard your article as not completely accurate or using different criteria from what most would use if you have any sense. I've seen different sources give slightly different drought years, and one source ("Drought conditions and management strategies in Zimbabwe" by S. S. Nangombe) even classified droughts according to severity, but 1992 is always included no matter what the source is. How is it that you believe your source is completely accurate when it implies that 1992 was not a drought year for Zimbabwe?

Also, regarding being "so wrong"...you're the same person who in the past just parroted some made up nonsense (made up by a neo-nazi "journalist" no less) about farmers in Zambia as soon as he came across it on the internet, without doing any verification, simply because you believed it provided an opportunity to make negative comments about an African group. You have a habit on here of just making stuff up when it comes to Africa and I've had to correct multiple incorrect statements that you've made, so I can't comprehend how you have the gall to say "as usual actual facts etc...."

Also, I don't know why you posted the same image three times...that won't make it any less inaccurate.

Mugabe came to power in 1980--but even you probably knew that.
Just look at what happened with Zim IMPORTS of mealie meal.
View attachment 22199

Yeah...I know when Mugabe came to power.

I also know that Mugabe didn't carry out the "land grabs" you referred to in 1980, or in 1991-1992.

You, YES YOU! Suggested that Tobacco was the only cash crop, but maybe English is your second language.
Years ago, on this forum, on a thread which you weren't on (or in which we didn't interact at all), I explicitly mentioned that Zimbabwe exported sugar, cotton, and metals (from mining), and this is before I had had any interaction with you on the topic of Zimbabwe. How is it that you believe that I asserted that "tobacco was the only cash crop" simply because, in later posts, I emphasized the greater importance of tobacco as an export over most other agricultural exports? Sorry but there is no argument here for you to latch on to. If I've already posted that Zimbabwe exported sugar and cotton in the distant past (and I have), it couldn't be the case that I believed that "tobacco is the only cash crop" even if in a later post I emphasized the greater importance of tobacco as a cash crop compared to most others.

You are talking nonsense. Manufacturing declined immediately after the Lancaster House settlement because, with aid and forex, availaibilty imports were possible--I note that you skirt the situation of the mining sector. It collapsed in the early 2000s because of African banditry.
The most substantial decline before the 2008 law took place in the time period that I mentioned. I didn't "skirt the situation of the mining sector". I'm aware that it declined, but your response focused mainly on the decline in manufacturing so I commented on that.

There was no protectionism on external investment in industry in Rhodesia--NONE AT ALL and i challenge you to prove otherwise.
After UDI there were restrictions on the export of profits and forex regulations, but no criminal demand that some raggle-taggle African loafer should get half of a company just because his uncle was Mugabe's mate
The point I actually made was that the decline in the manufacturing sector didn't simply occur in or after 2008, hence your earlier comment/explanation just didn't make much sense. I didn't assert that something like the 2008 law had existed for Rhodesia - my post implies exactly the opposite if you have any reading comprehension.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
Life expectancy increased under colonial rule for the Brit empire so I imagine the lack of medical supplies/Drs/colonial officials may have had an affect on the wilder areas, such as Papua New Guinea and some areas of India/Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,630
Benin City, Nigeria
As usual actual facts prove you wrong--note drought years (NB Drought does not mean "no rain", it means rainfall 0f 75% less than the historical average for the region or sub-region.
How could anyone be so wrong?
I just took a brief look at the actual article that you cited (which it seems you didn't actually read). On the page immediately above (p. 3641) the page that you cited (p. 3642), it cites an article from 2008:

"Manatsa et al. (2008) Southern Africa – Zimbabwe: 1902–1903, 1911– 1916, 1926–1927, 1941–1942, 1963–1964, 1972–1973, 1982–1984, 1986–1987, 1991–1992 The study identified droughts in Zimbabwe based on SPI estimation from the regionally averaged rainfall for the period 1900–2000. The moderate to severe droughts are noted here, with 1991– 1992 as the most extreme drought of the 20th century."

The second half of the years listed here, from the 2008 article that is cited by the article that you referenced, mostly matches up with what I posted earlier as drought years. So your own source cites a source that basically agrees with what I wrote.

By the way, if you had actually read the article you referenced before rushing to table 3, you would have come across this statement on p. 3639:

"Table 3 provides a summary of the drought events recorded in the EM-DAT database along with the number of people killed and affected and estimated economic damage. This widely used database provides very useful information for this study. However, caution is required while using it for a specific purpose due to several reasons. First, the available information underestimates the total number of drought events per country and consequent impacts. Generally, a much lower number of droughts are recorded for many countries (e.g. Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe and South Africa) for the period 1900–2013, which prohibits formulating a century-scale picture of drought patterns for these countries."
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
What exactly are you claiming here? That there was no drought in Zimbabwe in 1991-1992 because that particular article you've cited doesn't list it as a "drought event" going by its particular criteria? The article you've cited just seems to be inaccurate about droughts for Zimbabwe. I don't know of any credible source that says there wasn't a drought in Zimbabwe in 1991-1992, but the article you've cited seems to imply exactly that - that there wasn't a drought in Zimbawe in 1991-1992. So you should regard your article as not completely accurate or using different criteria from what most would use if you have any sense. I've seen different sources give slightly different drought years, and one source ("Drought conditions and management strategies in Zimbabwe" by S. S. Nangombe) even classified droughts according to severity, but 1992 is always included no matter what the source is. How is it that you believe your source is completely accurate when it implies that 1992 was not a drought year for Zimbabwe?

Also, regarding being "so wrong"...you're the same person who in the past just parroted some made up nonsense (made up by a neo-nazi "journalist" no less) about farmers in Zambia as soon as he came across it on the internet, without doing any verification, simply because you believed it provided an opportunity to make negative comments about an African group. You have a habit on here of just making stuff up when it comes to Africa and I've had to correct multiple incorrect statements that you've made, so I can't comprehend how you have the gall to say "as usual actual facts etc...."

Also, I don't know why you posted the same image three times...that won't make it any less inaccurate.




Yeah...I know when Mugabe came to power.

I also know that Mugabe didn't carry out the "land grabs" you referred to in 1980, or in 1991-1992.



Years ago, on this forum, on a thread which you weren't on (or in which we didn't interact at all), I explicitly mentioned that Zimbabwe exported sugar, cotton, and metals (from mining), and this is before I had had any interaction with you on the topic of Zimbabwe. How is it that you believe that I asserted that "tobacco was the only cash crop" simply because, in later posts, I emphasized the greater importance of tobacco as an export over most other agricultural exports? Sorry but there is no argument here for you to latch on to. If I've already posted that Zimbabwe exported sugar and cotton in the distant past (and I have), it couldn't be the case that I believed that "tobacco is the only cash crop" even if in a later post I emphasized the greater importance of tobacco as a cash crop compared to most others.



The most substantial decline before the 2008 law took place in the time period that I mentioned. I didn't "skirt the situation of the mining sector". I'm aware that it declined, but your response focused mainly on the decline in manufacturing so I commented on that.



The point I actually made was that the decline in the manufacturing sector didn't simply occur in or after 2008, hence your earlier comment/explanation just didn't make much sense. I didn't assert that something like the 2008 law had existed for Rhodesia - my post implies exactly the opposite if you have any reading comprehension.
Please link or at least cite the authorities you refer to. Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist