Author: changabula

What the British did to Africa [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-14 17:48:54 |Display all floors
And lookit what the black rule have achieved for the rainbow nations!!!

It turns South Africa overnight into a multiracial sewer with one of the highest violent crime, murder, rape, and AIDS infection rates in the world.  

But of course you wouldn't hear that from the press.  After patting themselves on the back for heralding in an era of "multiculturalism", "equality"and "democracy" by their long campaign of sanctions,boycott and intimidation, the medias reporting on the country almost cease.  Thats because their pet project have turned into a litany of crimes, filth, disease and savagery.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-3-14 18:57:28 |Display all floors
Africa is a continent, not a state.

Africa is a continent of many countries that were once colonies of places like England, America, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and maybe Spain and Portugal too.  

What is the difference between China and Africa?  

Well, if you read your history about the treaties that permitted various nations (UK, USA, Germany) access to different ports (Hong Kong, Shaghai, Peking), then you will see that the biggest difference between Africa and China is -- Mao.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2007-3-15 23:12:08 |Display all floors
The pictures that reveal UK's hidden history

For the first time the complex and sometimes harrowing history of immigration to the UK is being told, through rarely seen photographs, official documents, maps and personal papers. And it's all online.

Rescued slaves

Dated 1869, this picture is a rare snapshot of the terrible slave trafficking. The emaciated boys sit on the lower deck of a Royal Navy ship apparently have been taken from a slave vessel trading illegally off the African coast.

The captain had instructions not to return the slaves

[ Last edited by changabula at 2007-3-15 11:16 PM ]
I am Chinese and Proud of it!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-28 00:37:51 |Display all floors

May I Ask A Question?

Has anyone here ever wondered what the world would have been like if the west had not stolen the resources from the rest of the world? Lets use the British as an example (bearing in mind that i am British). Some would argue that they built infrastructure but with the resources and money that was available to the african nations, do you not think that they would have done it themselves?

What would the world be like if colonialism had not happened? Would the world be the exact opposite of what it is today? Would Africa, Asia and the Middle East be rich while europe was poor? What do you think?
"People all over the world join hands"

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-28 01:03:00 |Display all floors
I think Europe would be substantially poorer. Obviously, if it had not been for colonialism, those resources would not have been available to them (at the same cost, anyway), so European civilisation as we know it today would not exist.

On the other hand, I doubt that Africa would have been much richer without European colonialism. Modern Africans had been living in Africa for over 1,000,000 years before Europeans ever set foot in Africa without ever having made significant use of its' mineral and other resources (gold, iron, etc). It is often argued that modern-day povery in Africa is a direct consequence of colonialism, however, this fails to explain the poverty and suffering endemic in never-colonised nations such as Ethiopia and other long-independent states established by Africans such as Liberia and Haiti and the relative success of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Now of course, racists will choose to interpret this as an indication of racial superiority - I would argue on behalf of the cultural explanation and a lack of education. The way I look at it, before Europeans came to Africa, Africans had a low but stable population as a result of tribal warfare and lack of communications (roads, etc). When Europeans arrived, modern farming techniques, organisation and an end to warfare led to a vast increase in population - but the problem was that the maintanance of same was dependent on European techniques. European colonialists feared that training an African educated elite would destabilise Africa and lead to decolonization - and ultimately, they were correct; when they belatedly introduced higher education to Africa in the 1950's, it did lead to independence movements and ultimately the expulsion of the colonists.

But with the expulsion of the colonists often went the colonial civil and military administration - leaving the newly independent states without effective leadership. Since the colonialists had deliberately delayed the creation of a native elite in most of Africa, fearing unrest, the native elite generally lacked the necessary skills, leading to corruption, warfare, and in many cases national bankruptcy and starvation.

Ultimately, the blame for the failure of modern Africa goes both ways. African independence leaders should have had the common sense to realize that a longer transition period was necessary for the sake of their own people, or at least that European administrators needed to be maintained post independence until enough African civil servants were trained; and colonial governments should have had insisted more forcefully to independence leaders that this was necessary.

[ Last edited by irishinuk at 2007-3-28 01:08 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2007-3-28 03:56:09 |Display all floors

Slavery Took Its Toll

Europeans committed egregious crimes against humanity in Africa for centuries, without having to pay for it even to this date.

Slavery is highly destructive.  It removed, by violence, the fittest young bodies from the African continent, and has a direct effect in deterring and destroying the development of the people.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-3-28 04:41:52 |Display all floors
"It removed, by violence, the fittest young bodies from the African continent"

On the contrary, surely it was the less fit Africans who would have been able to be captured by Arab and West African slave traders and sold on to Europeans (since the most fit would surely have escaped)? And since European participation in the slave trade was limited to West Africa, how can this possibly serve as an explanation for the poverty of the rest of Africa?

Not forgetting, of course, that the slave trade in Africa and the Middle East predates European civilisation by centuries, if not millennia.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.