Do you think the countries in Africa has repeated the benefits of colonism?
544816
I don't think that one can generally say that colonization has benefited those colonized African countries or not. I am from Africa and my country has not been colonized because of the triumph of our ancestors over the colonizing powers. Our forefathers had repeatedly to fight with European forces for the sovereignty of our country. Among the historic fights one had lasted about five years and whenever I mention it I have to admit how good some of such powers were. For example, in spite of uninterrupted patriotic fights the colonizing forces were facing during those restless five years a lot of infrastructural facilities (which are still quite useful) were developed.\n\nSometimes I ask myself which one would have been better for us, being colonized or not. Most of the time I am happy that my country's resources are not taken away by foreigners and our nation has maintained its independence. Especially independence of thoughts that gave us self-confidence; confidence not to submit for some unjustified ideas and remarks only by looking whom they come from.\n\nHowever, having abundant untouched natural resources and age long history of independence we are still poor and we have not used our natural resources yet. When I think of this, I wish we were colonized, our resources were explored/ exploited and my country was developed a bit more with most of the resource taken away. But the things that still outweigh this idea in my mind are: one we have not become victims of the segregation thing the colonialists did in other countries [for example, in Rwanda], second we don't have any national problem related to colour based unbalanced resource utilization/allocation, and thirdly we truly love and respect all human beings for we all are equal.\n\nIn general, I believe, being colonized has advantages and disadvantages. We have to accept it as a historic event and we also have to beg forgiveness for some of the rulers who lost respect for mankind and were so cruel. It happened the way it was allowed to happen by the heavenly Father. Now we have to work together to make a difference in the life of African people. Colonization was good and colonization was also bad. It has two faces. For they are inseparable, it has merits and demerits but what matters is which face we turn and see/often see/ often like to see.
561981
Of course they are different. Look at their societies; Northern have stronger economies, crime is lower, less corruption. Ironic, but it's the same in Europe as it is in north America. Criticise imperialism, but nations that were colonized by GB are better off today than countries colonized by France, Spain, Portugal, and NL. Good, uncorrupted government serves mankind well.
25545
possible countries include but not limited to:\nSouth Africa - the country has a suberb government and national infrastracture, both in industry and commerce and in civic structures. it also has a lot of minerals and agriculture potential. this country can influence africa economically. it has the economical muscle.\nZimbabwe - good country with a lot of potential in mining, agriculture and manufactoring, but bad leaders. this country has shown that it can influence africa politically\nNigeria - has a lot of oil and can influence africa by its oil.\nBostwana - a lot of diamonds, good lifestyle, but still to be respected by the african countries. its too quiet at present.
381986
I dont think so. They mainly help the developed countries at the cost of developing ones. Though the developing countries do incur some profit like removal of restrictions on export etc. but in long term these organisations arent really useful for the developing nations
5397
If it were simple it wouldn't be an exam question.  \n\n(I'd write about specifics, and say the impact of colonial rule depends on the nature of the colonial power and rule, and the people who implemented it, and on the society and peoples on whom the rule was imposed.  Fopr instance, there were great differences in the forms of colonialism practiced in Africa by Britain, France and Belgium. In almost every case colonialism introduced "modern" practices for good and ill, and creaated gerrymandered countries which intensified conflict between incompatible local societies.)
534835
one might be made to think so. democracy itself, is not all what others might want to adopt.for example, democracy exited long time ago in Africa before the west adopted it. democracy in Africa, was through the kings and chiefs. today in some parts of Africa, it still exits. African governments have adopted the western way of democracy, but does not work for them. so I personally, does not think so.\nit does not improve economical performances, but rather make people in power or in high offices to become more corrupt.
418435
Hi, All african countries have cars and houses so that's the wrong way to put it.  Judged by Gross Domestic Product we have unusual answers.  Yes, first South Africa is far ahead, but the other four contenders are Botswana, Namibia, Tunisia and Gabon.  All these countries have different development strategies, and I'd say that Botswana and Gabon are not developed at all, they simply have natural resources and a small population.  Botswana has diamonds, and Gabon has oil, but Botswana has a nearly 40% AIDS rate, and Gabon has most of its country as undeveloped jungle, with nearly no industries.  \n\nMy answers would be \n1) South Africa: it's industrialised and now with the end of Apartheid many blacks have risen to economic success. \n2) Tunisia: they've managed to become a prime tourist destination and use the money for industrialisation, they've done it all without oil or diamonds.\n3) Namibia: Quite similar to South Africa, was in fact part of Apartheid South Africa until 1992, so again industry created by European settlers with the usual problems of bad distribution and exclusion of the native population. \n4) Marocco: Another tourist destination in Africa, but they have done not as well as Tunisia in terms of lifting the rest of the population out of poverty.  \n5) An unlikely answer, but Ivory Coast: They were essentially doing well before the war and are likely to bounce back after it, the prosperity was starting to cause ethnic tensions and that really brought the country down in 2002.\n\nI exclude places like Algeria where despite the oil boom, most people live in fear.  Libya is still a one-man rule, I'll wait and see on that case.  I'm not impressed by oil or diamonds when they can't help an AIDS crisis or create good housing for all, so places like Gabon don't figure high in my statistics.  \n\nOh, and some the islands of Africa (Cap verde, Seychells, Mauritius are doing relatively well, partly due to offshore financial centres, and tourism).  But offshore finance also gives a veil of secrecy for capital to escape out of the resource rich countries, therefore harming the countries like Nigeria which is oil rich.  So Mauritius bankers are actually causing poverty in rest of Africa... see below the link.
324702
It would be unfair to categorize people as stupid, lazy or any other name without having a more in depth grasp of the situation people in these countries are living. I'm from Senegal, West Africa, English is my third language, yet I feel I have more brains than certain people that will use such a medium to speak nonsense.\nAnyway mulumbu, to your question the answer is yes, but certain elements will have to be in place. Neither the US, nor any of the Western developed countries made it to this level of development in one day. No need to expand the historical tangent, but many African nations have had their so called Independence less than half a century ago -Senegal's was in 1960. After years of exploitation via colonization those countries owe a financial debt to the countries that colonize them in the first place, talking about irony. This makes it virtually impossible to fashion any internal policies that will favor the growth of those countries because the interests that needs to be considered first are the one of those other nations. \nSo when you ignorant people use the N word freely, or call people names in the comfort of your own cozy homes, my striving self for a better world via knowledge will be busy being curious about things that governs and affects the well being of our society.
12097
Africa at the start of the 20th century\n\n\nAll of the continent claimed by European powers, except for Ethiopia ("Abyssinia") and Liberia.\n\nThe European powers set up a variety of different administrations in Africa at this time, with different ambitions and degrees of power. In some areas, parts of British West Africa for example, colonial control was tenuous and intended for simple economic extraction, strategic power, or as part of a long term development plan.\n\nIn other areas Europeans were encouraged to settle, creating settler states in which a European minority came to dominate society. Settlers only came to a few colonies in sufficient numbers to have a strong impact. British settler colonies included British East Africa, now Kenya, North and South Rhodesia, later Zambia and Zimbabwe, and South Africa, which already had a significant population of European settlers, the Boers. In the Second Boer War, between the British Empire and the two Boer republics of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (Transvaal Republic), the Boers unsuccsefully resisted absorbtion in to the British Empire.\n\nFrance planned to settle Algeria and eventually incorporate it into the French state as an equal to the European provinces. Its proximity across the Meditterranean allowed plans of this scale.\n\nIn most areas colonial administrations did not have the manpower or resources to fully administer the territory and had to rely on local power structures to help them. Various factions and groups within the societies exploited this European requirement for their own purposes, attempting to gain a position of power within their own communities by cooperating with Europeans. One aspect of this struggle included what Terrence Ranger has termed the "invention of tradition." In order to legitimize their own claims to power in the eyes of both the colonial administrators, and their own people, people would essentially manufacture "traditional" claims to power, or ceremonies. As a result many societies were thrown into disarray by the new order.\n\n\n\n\nDuring World War I, there were several battles between the United Kingdom and Germany, the most notable being the Battle of Tanga, and a sustained guerrilla campaign by the German General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck.
991177
I see your logic and there is some truth to what you are saying.  The patterns are there, but i would HIGHLY recommend you read the Book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by geographer Jared Diamond.  It is incredible and discusses these topics and more.  Like why were Europeans able to conquer the new world and colonize Africa, and the biological reasons, such as introduced species.  Its a thick read, but i believe it will offer you a solid base to draw some conclusions to your statements above.  Best of luck!\n\nAnd by the way these countries are now at war because they were colonies (google the berlin conference of 1834 , thats when they drew up arbitrary lines in africa and divided it up amonst eupean countries) and when the imperial powers gave them independence all infrastructure and government was removed and that has left these people in a power struggle ever since. The last colonie in africa gained independence in 1984.  these are recent struggles.  Apartheid just ended in S.Africa.
764303
(ever notice that latitudinal correlation between economic power and distance from the equator?)\nSomebody asked earlier "why is Asia still a poor country?" \nI gave the following answer and it's also true for why Africa is a poor country :\n\n\nThis is a complex question to answer in such short form but, I'll try. In short, Climate and history have shaped human economics.\nWealth (a middle class) is a fairly recent development even in western culture. Not so long ago, everywhere in the world, societies had an elite ruling class and the general masses were poor. Corruption and inequality was present in all cultures. \nThings we typically think are responsible for wealth like; Good laws, fair practices, good government and human rights are more a product of a robust middle class.\nThe significant historical events that gave rise to economic power were; transportation of goods, technology, and most significanty the industrial revolution. That's history.\nBut what about geography? Why did these events occur sooner in some parts of the world rather than other parts? That is the meat of ur question. The answer is climate.\nViewed in it's simplest way, It is less comfortable to live in a cold climate. It takes the burning of more energy, materials and work to be able to house, clothe and feed urself in a cold climate. A place where food is hard to grow for a few months out of the entire year, u need to have lots of clothes to stay warm, good shelter to stay warm, and you have to heat that shelter.\nThat was the catalyst for development. "necessity is the mother of invention" Yes, sounds too simple to be true right?\nConversly, in a warm climate, it's easier to have housing, food and comfort even if ur poor. Easier for the rulers to keep the masses alive. The disparity between an elite ruling class and massive lower class had stability. Everything works, no need for things to change. Progress occured more slowly. \nViewed in the most basic way, societies of colder climates, though less populated, still developed faster due to demand for goods and discomfort of living. Tropical countries fell behind with this develpmental pace. Thats the answer to ur question why poverty still exists all along the geographic equator. It's not just Asia. It's Africa, Southamerica etc. \nHere's the kicker, Things are now changing very rapidly. With what we call globalization, the world becoming a smaller place, the balance of power and wealth is in flux more than ever before in the history of the human race. What direction it will go... how it will end up is anyone's guess.\nThe history of economic power is an intricately complex subject.\nI hope my simple and gerneralized explanation answers ur question.  Despite having been older and populated for longer, countries located along the equator did not develop at the same rapid speed to keep up with the more recent countries located in cooler regions.\nHope this answered ur question.
985049
You might learn a lot from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization\nI think the borders were more a part of the monarchy's decision to allow for different parties to control different areas as they gradually made their way on to the continent
704943
O.K.  good thing you clarified that!  So, taking in consideration your basis for the question, and although I have never been there, from what I have heard and read, you are probably right - at least about the fact that the parts of Africa under 'white rule' do seem to be quite a bit more progressive than those we see under 'black rule'.\n\nI do not believe, however, that this has anything to do with intellect.  I'm quite sure that it has much more to do with the wealth, which almost always accompanies power and control that surely came into Africa with the white people who now inhabit parts of the region.  \n\nAnd, I barely understand the politics of this country, much less know anything about what REALLY goes on in and around the Whitehouse, that is not told to us by the media. However, I have a hunch that pretty much everything that happens is a result of bribery,  blackmail, extortion, propaganda, and at the bottom of it all, who has the most money/power.  All around the world, the rich and powerful tend to get what they want, and anything that may or may not be left over goes to the rest of us common people - of any color in any land.\n\nAs I say, I don't know this for sure or anything, but are you so sure that Angola and Zimbabwe are really completely run by their own people?  Or maybe it just is made to appear that way.  I'm fairly sure that if there are resources there, and if the leaders of those countries are the true leaders (not "puppets", put in place by wealthy and powerful while people), then they would surely have taken advantage of them. Unless, they are being prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control.\n\nAnd just FYI, I'm not trying to stick up for or stand against any particular race.  I'm white, born in America - for better or worse.  I'm just writing from the perspective with which I see things.\n\nI dont' think that the present Iraqi "government" is really in control of Iraq.  I don't mean that they are having trouble with the civil war there that was not there before the US invasion, but that even if there weren't a civil war, that government is just an extention of George Bush, Rumsfeld, et al.  I only brought up Iraq to try to illustrate a concept that things aren't always the way they appear. And just because it appears that certain African countries are under 'black rule', that in reality, they probably aren't.  They probably answer to outsiders, and probably not by choice either.  Just like the Iraqi's.\n\nJust what I suspect, no proof....just my 2 cents.  Hope it helps?
349707
Yeah... I think you will see movements in that direction for many contenents... the African Union is in talks... but how knows if that will happen.\nI think it would be better for them because no one country has the infastruture to be very competitve in a global economy, but together they could make waves and get some things done
80302
Tough question.  I believe that Ethiopia was the only African country never colonized.  However, it was ruled by Italy during WWII
939902
The ones in Africa are good i hear.
101420
Mess in Afgahnistan??  I think the TALIBAN caused that mess and the Europeans are helping because it is the right thing to do!  A lot more of the world is helping there as well!\n\nSouth Africa has made so many strides, FINNALY abolishing Apathied, giving up their nuclear weapons VOLUNTARILY, and helping in missions that promote freedom.  I applaud and welcome all the good things that South Africans are doing.  I hope that they get more foreign aid and investment from the USA, maybe we can stop buying everything from China and Europe...  \n\nI hope for an economically strong South Africa that will lead the continent to freedom and the rule of law.