re: Statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been toppled in Canada

quote:

---

Who said it did?

---

I’m just preempting the inevitable retort that always comes in response to someone pointing out that African civilization is still in the 9th century.

quote:

---

The CFA franc system, French involvement in multiple ports (such as Vincent Bollore's recent involvement at Tema), and shady deals with NGO's and governments (like the NAFSN which dispossessed farmers) shows that colonialism is still alive and well.

---

So is there any point at which the excuses will end?

Or will African nations lack of success always be blamed on the very evil imperial overlords that enabled what little success they do achieve?

Is it your position that African nations would be better off had the Europeans never established functioning governmental institutions?

quote:

---

The CFA franc system, French involvement in multiple ports (such as Vincent Bollore's recent involvement at Tema), and shady deals with NGO's and governments (like the NAFSN which dispossessed farmers) shows that colonialism is still alive and well.

---

None of that is colonialism. Every bit of it is 100% African corruption.

quote:

---

So is there any point at which the excuses will end?

---

The CFA franc system is a very overt way of propping up the French economy. It also explains much of France's geopolitical interest.

quote:

---

Or will African nations lack of success always be blamed on the very evil imperial overlords that enabled what little success they do achieve?

---

Give me an example of a success from European colonization.

The relative success of the continent as a whole is an insane way of discussing the situation, as the continent is utterly massive. It would be like grouping the US together with Canada and Mexico, and pretending all the problems of the respective countries are the same, wholesale. The issues of Egypt are different from the issues of Kenya, and trying to talk about them in a way that is accurate for both is not possible.

But if there is one place I can broadly discuss is that countries which have liberalized have seen overall GDP growth. That is complicated by the massive population growth during the same time period, which drives both inefficiency, corruption, and migration to the developed world. Those demographic issues are going to made even worse, as Africa is predicted to double in its population, and represent upwards of 35% of the world population by the end of the century.

It is exceedingly difficult to develop an economy without dealing with excess population pressures in some capacity, as even places like India, China, and Turkey could export their population, which helped stabilize those countries, in a relative sense. The Egyptian economy, for example, has to add something like 7 million jobs in the next ten years just to deal with their population. That fact is an explanation for Egypt's geopolitical position on Libya, the Eastern Med, and Ethiopia.

quote:

---

Is it your position that African nations would be better off had the Europeans never established functioning governmental institutions?

---

Imposing the Westphalian system probably wasn't the best solution for any former colonial state, and European colonial interaction was a net negative for pretty much every place that suffered under colonialism, including places like India, which seemingly recovered. Indeed, avoiding domination by foreign powers is the explicit foreign policy goal of numerous post-colonial nations, like India and China. And I really want to know what functioning governmental institution these Europeans bequeathed onto the Africans?

That was sarcasm. Did you look him up?

Everything is starting to look like Africa with the chaos and vandalism. Soon children will be holding guns to defend themselves from the "racists".

quote:

---

Give me an example of a success from European colonization.

---

Australia

quote:

---

European imperialism never left. The CFA franc system, French involvement in multiple ports (such as Vincent Bollore's recent involvement at Tema), and shady deals with NGO's and governments (like the NAFSN which dispossessed farmers) shows that colonialism is still alive and well.

---

I would argue that is corruption by multiple people / groups / nations.

I mean, is Montenegro now a Chinese colony?

quote:

---

Australia

---

If we are going that route, add Canada, the US, New Zealand and South Africa (prior to collapse) to the list.

But I think he's speaking to nations where the indigenenous population remains dominant as in Africa. For that you would need to look at Indochina.

I'll just say it. The anti-colonialism sentiment is tired. Many parts of the colonized world have done well. Poor places that were colonized and are still poor wouldn't necessarily be wealthy were it not for the yolk of their colonial periods.

This debate has devolved into HS AP Euro...or small liberal arts college professor level expert.

quote:

---

Why did colonized places like India, Canada, Indonesia, and Taiwan grow into GDP powerhouses while others did not?

---

I wouldn't really include Canada in this, as their economic history is closely tied to the US's. I can speak at some length to Indian history. Firstly, I don't think Western history captures how exceedingly wealthy the subcontinent was before colonial interaction. Some have argued that India was developing a "proto-industrial" economy during Mughal rule in the 17th century, with the wealth estimates ranging to around 25% of the world's GDP at the time. The Mughals also ruled quite a large number of people, with estimates putting them near 30% of the entire world population. The reasons why India and China have such larger populations is partly due to their association with rice cultivation, as rice provides quite a lot of nutrition, and thus the population centers of humanity were mainly centered between India and China. It took to the 1800's before Europe caught up in terms of population numbers.

Where Europe advanced was along banking, which allowed further industrialization, while at the same time Mughal rule deteriorated in India. After the partition, the Indian economy was in tatters, with the production of certain items that were once within the British Raj, now in a separate country, which required reorganization of certain sectors of Indian agriculture. This led to some periods of food shortages. Generally the Indian economy was closed off for a long time. Attempts to liberalize in the 60's were met with currency devaluations. Despite this, India had growth rates around 3-5% in terms of GDP, lower than most of their peers. What occurred in India in 1991 was the passing of certain laws which forced liberalization of the Indian economy, which came after a tumultuous decade where the Indian government nearly defaulted due to the way it managed its currency, as well as the assassinations of both Indira and Rajiv Ganhdi. The tumult gave the new government in 1991 more leeway to liberalize than it had before, as a new monetary policy was set, certain tariffs were abolished, and public monopolies were dismantled, among many other policies.

This drove investment into the country in a massive way from international capital, which extremely positive effects. I went to the country many times between 2000 and 2014, and it seemed a completely different place each subsequent time. The growth rate between 1991 and 2019 totals something like a 900% increase, with expected growth to reach 44 trillion by 2050. The Indian story should be told more in terms of the overt success of liberalization, as it is a pretty startling story, which showcases the problems of other developing economies, and why sound monetary policy is needed for investment and growth.