If European colonialism hadn't happened, then Africa would be a 'forwards' society?

Watch
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Why do some people say that if Europe hadn't colonized Africa, then it would be an industrial, 'forwards-thinking', first-world country? A little bit like the Black Panther film.

Firstly, I want to point out that I think colonialism, and the violence and murders it created, was disgraceful.

My query is this, though: Firstly, Africa was already underdeveloped industrially and economically when the Europeans went in hundreds of years ago....Secondly, it isn't possible to hypothesize alternative versions of history - we simply don't know what would have happened if a particular had not occurred.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
If Europe hadn't colonised Africa, the Black Panther film wouldn't have been made.
5
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by 04MR17)
If Europe hadn't colonised Africa, the Black Panther film wouldn't have been made.
Well yes, clearly....I haven't seen the film, I just know the gist of what it's about. You haven't responded to my query, though.
0
reply
Alexty28
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by xyz94)
Why do some people say that if Europe hadn't colonized Africa, then it would be an industrial, 'forwards-thinking', first-world country? A little bit like the Black Panther film.

Firstly, I want to point out that I think colonialism, and the violence and murders it created, was disgraceful.

My query is this, though: Firstly, Africa was already underdeveloped industrially and economically when the Europeans went in hundreds of years ago....Secondly, it isn't possible to hypothesize alternative versions of history - we simply don't know what would have happened if a particular had not occurred.
No.

Why I don't agree with European colonization and the countless genocides, we don't live in fantasy world if Africa was untouched it would be advance paradise.

There is a reason Africa was taken with ease, it was guns vs sticks. Most parts of Africa where 100's of years behind Europe. Of course European colonization hasn't done Africa any favours, but it didn't stop Africa from being a 'forward society'.
3
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Alexty28)
No.

Why I don't agree with European colonization and the countless genocides, we don't live in fantasy world if Africa was untouched it would be advance paradise.

There is a reason Africa was taken with ease, it was guns vs sticks. Most parts of Africa where 100's of years behind Europe. Of course European colonization hasn't done Africa any favours, but it didn't stop Africa from being a 'forward society'.
So you agree with me, then - that's what I was saying! Africa was underdeveloped ('sticks' as you say, vs Europe's guns), when the colonizers went in.....I do think that it was morally wrong, though.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by 04MR17)
If Europe hadn't colonised Africa, the Black Panther film wouldn't have been made.
Image
0
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
Image
Not quite getting the intended sentiment from the Steve Carrell Gif.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by xyz94)
Well yes, clearly....I haven't seen the film, I just know the gist of what it's about. You haven't responded to my query, though.
You're correct on your second point.

Your first point is sort of correct in my opinion. Yes they were industrially underdeveloped. But you could only say they were economically underdeveloped if you believed capitalism was a more developed economic system. Some people don't. You could argue that the Europeans were doing an excellent job at butchering each other, so the Africans were the more civilised of the two.
2
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by xyz94)
Not quite getting the intended sentiment from the Steve Carrell Gif.
Excuse me? Don't you dare ruin my joke.


Image
0
reply
Areosis
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
This just isn't true, the most powerful country on earth (economically and militarily) is a former colony.

Slavery and the mistreatment of black people are the main reasons of why Africa's development has been slowed but there are also factors such as inefficiency of agriculture and disease because of climate.

Africa is still growing and expanding as an economy and society it's just a bit behind in comparison to the rest of the world because of past problems and the continuation of problems with corruption, unstable borders and wars.
1
reply
Areosis
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by 04MR17)
You're correct on your second point.

Your first point is sort of correct in my opinion. Yes they were industrially underdeveloped. But you could only say they were economically underdeveloped if you believed capitalism was a more developed economic system. Some people don't. You could argue that the Europeans were doing an excellent job at butchering each other, so the Africans were the more civilised of the two.
Anyone who argues that capitalism isn't a more developed economic system should voluntarily live in a communist society... Oh wait they can't because they all completely flopped
2
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
You're correct on your second point.

But you could only say they were economically underdeveloped if you believed capitalism was a more developed economic system. Some people don't. You could argue that the Europeans were doing an excellent job at butchering each other, so the Africans were the more civilised of the two.
I can see that argument, however, I do have a few qualms with it. Firstly, the African chiefs/kings sold their own people to the Europeans. Secondly, when you say 'the Europeans', I think you mean the elite/the ruling classes, who entered into battle with one another. They didn't just randomly butcher civilians in their own countries. In saying 'forwards', I mean in terms of scientific and industrial development, which does improve the living conditions of a society over time (though of course, this was monopolized by the rich elite until after Victorian times, and there is still a rich/poor divide to this day, albeit less wide).
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Nah. Some people (you know who I mean) love to pretend that the evil white colonists are the reason that the black people in Africa are poor and underdeveloped. But no.
2
reply
YaliaV
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by 04MR17)
You're correct on your second point.

Your first point is sort of correct in my opinion. Yes they were industrially underdeveloped. But you could only say they were economically underdeveloped if you believed capitalism was a more developed economic system. Some people don't. You could argue that the Europeans were doing an excellent job at butchering each other, so the Africans were the more civilised of the two.
Passive aggressive smileys tend to indicate bitterness
3
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by DarthRoar)
Nah. Some people (you know who I mean) love to pretend that the evil white colonists are the reason that the black people in Africa are poor and underdeveloped. But no.
Well, colonialism certainly did not help Africa, but it can't be the principal reason why the continent is underdeveloped.....It was already scientifically and industrially far behind when compared to Europe, and we don't know what direction it would have gone in if colonialism hadn't happened.
1
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#16
Why do some people say that if Europe hadn't colonized Africa, then it would be an industrial, 'forwards-thinking', first-world continent? A little bit like the Black Panther film.

Firstly, I want to point out that I think colonialism, and the violence and murders it created, was disgraceful.

My query is this, though: Firstly, Africa was already underdeveloped industrially and economically when the Europeans went in hundreds of years ago....Secondly, it isn't possible to hypothesize alternative versions of history - we simply don't know what would have happened if a particular had not occurred.
0
reply
snipecaik
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
If you take a look at individual case studies by each nation, European intervention and influence has definitely had a negative impact. It was often the case that former colonial powers made African countries' economies dependant on their own, France was notorious for this in North and West Africa, and it obviously had a negative impact on their economy. There's also other issues such as the sociological impact of trying to introduce another culture into a different country, which I believe Britain was most guilty of, especially if you look at the impact of apartheid in South Africa as well as the introduction of Christianity into Uganda which has resulted in people adopting some very Conservative and not 'forward-thinking' views particularly with regards to homosexuality.
However, this is a really complicated and expansive topic, which I feel like I'm not qualified to answer, if you're particularly interested I would recommend reading up on the topic and reading some expert's perspective and analysis.
1
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#18
I'll post my replies to each part in bold.

(Original post by snipecaik)
If you take a look at individual case studies by each nation, European intervention and influence has definitely had a negative impact.

Well obviously, I wasn't denying that.

It was often the case that former colonial powers made African countries' economies dependant on their own, France was notorious for this in North and West Africa, and it obviously had a negative impact on their economy.

This doesn't change the fact that African nations were already underdeveloped in the first place, when France and England went in....Of course, Europe's behaviour was morally wrong and I don't excuse it. All I am saying is that the colonialism can't be the original cause of Africa's being behind.

There's also other issues such as the sociological impact of trying to introduce another culture into a different country, which I believe Britain was most guilty of, especially if you look at the impact of apartheid in South Africa as well as the introduction of Christianity into Uganda which has resulted in people adopting some very Conservative and not 'forward-thinking' views particularly with regards to homosexuality.

I never mentioned this, and I wasn't discussing this in particular; African nations had their own spiritual/religious beliefs/practices, as most societies in the world do, before Europe even went there.

However, this is a really complicated and expansive topic, which I feel like I'm not qualified to answer, if you're particularly interested I would recommend reading up on the topic and reading some expert's perspective and analysis

Of course it is, but you don't need to be an expert to look at basic empirical facts and form an opinion. Different experts have different opinions, in any case - especially historians and political philosophers. The entire 'if colonialism had not happened, Africa would be a first world continent today' doesn't seem logical, in light of the two arguments I raised initially in my post.
.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by snipecaik)
However, this is a really complicated and expansive topic, which I feel like I'm not qualified to answer, if you're particularly interested I would recommend reading up on the topic and reading some expert's perspective and analysis.
There is no definitive or authorative enough analysis on things like this, we can only assume one thing by assuming another implicitly. In this case, that Africa would have gone on to become a 'better' place without colonization. There is no way to verify that, it is merely speculative.

Maybe it would have or maybe it wouldn't, it is impossible to tell. As for all the experts who manage to measure the immeasurable... bear in mind what is in it for them. it represents a livelihood to so many of them...
3
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
Because they love to engage in counter factuals they know they cant possibly prove but equally people cant prove wrong so they can try to maintain some perverse, and damn shaky, version of the high ground.
Personally one think's they're rubes though. They have not a shred of evidence to back up these claims.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you finding researching unis for 2021 entry?

I have been able to get all the information I need from online research (76)
18.67%
I have tried virtual events and found them useful (82)
20.15%
I have tried virtual events and did not find them useful (77)
18.92%
I would be interested in trying socially distanced or scaled down in person events (89)
21.87%
I want to but don't know where to start with researching unis for 2021 entry (41)
10.07%
I haven't started researching yet (42)
10.32%

Watched Threads

View All