Hacker News Reader

Comment by sgt | Hacker News Reader

Are you joking? There was no stable political culture in (sub saharan) Africa to speak of - it was primarily tribal and ad-hoc. Colonialism had indeed some serious disadvantages, but it's also primarily the reason why modern cities with infrastructure and major industries exist in Africa.

View on HN

What period are you talking about?

Do these count as “stable political cultures”? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai_Empire

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo

[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_Kingdom

“Within two years, Shaka had defeated Zwide at the Battle of Mhlatuze River (1820) and broken up the Ndwandwe alliance, some of whom in turn began a murderous campaign against other Nguni tribes and clans, setting in motion what became known as Defecane or Mfecane, a mass-migration of tribes fleeing the remnants of the Ndwandwe fleeing the Zulu. The death toll has never been satisfactorily determined, but the whole region became nearly depopulated. Normal estimates for the death toll during this period range from 1 million to 2 million people. These numbers are however controversial.[3][4][5][6] By 1825, Shaka had conquered an empire covering an area of around 11,500 square miles (30,000 km2).”

The cities as they exist today may have been augmented and developed in part through European effort, but they are a far cry from what would have been there had the preexisting social orders not been intentionally decimated and if their resources had been spent on their own development rather than Europe’s. Your belief about African societies is a product of after-the-fact justification of the destruction and attempted erasure of the preexisting civilizations.

I'd say it's highly likely there would be not much else than warring tribes and the most basic of technology (such as agriculture and mining). Africa is a really tough place by definition, and for civilizations to thrive you need not just political stability, but also a cultural inclinations that are mostly lacking in sub-saharan society.

First off, if you are just trolling, well done, this is top shelf stuff.

If not could you expand on the following points?

What does “tough place by definition” mean?

Which “cultural inclinations” are missing in Africa? Are there any other places that you think similarly don’t have them or this only the case in Africa?

Probably the most extreme example of the horrors of colonialism is Belgian Congo.[1] No surprise that this is one of the most unstable and violent places in the world. [2]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free...

[2] https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/democratic-republic-congo

I am not trolling - and I understand we are approaching an emotional threshold here for some.

Lots of factors ranging from hostile climates, tribal/ethnic wars, political issues, language barriers ... the list goes on.

In addition to this, you have cultural traits that simply make it harder to build (or rebuild) a civilization. I think many people living on the continent would understand what I mean.

Nobody in their right mind denies the horrors of colonialism, but one should not consider all historic events as exclusively negative.

Not much of technology was invented over thousands of years (in sub-saharan Africa). Without colonialism (of some sort), it could be very possible that Africa would have remained in the stone age for the next thousand years.

> but they are a far cry from what would have been there had the preexisting social orders not been intentionally decimated and if their resources had been spent on their own development rather than Europe’s.

That's a big if. Of course they would be much richer if they were organized and stable enough to manage mineral resources in way that the profits went to their own development. But the whole problem is they didn't have that organization, so they couldn't. How do you pay for public services when you don't have a strong enough government? How do you secure the money when everyone is a sell-out?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com