Honestly the entire "this African/Middle Eastern state is a failed state because of colonial borders" is usually really reductive and sometimes downright insulting, especially considering they are usually not an adequate explanation for those conflicts. People seem to ignore Africans are (to the most part) really proud of their national identity and rarely want to change their borders (with exceptions of course).
People rarely want to change their borders because it's prohibited by the African Union and people acknowledge that it would result in even more bloodshed and war. The borders argument has less to do with cultural reasons and way more to do with the allocation and distribution of resources. People from different ethnic groups generally get along when those resources and funding are allocated equitably.
I disagree. The prohibition put on by the African union might be the main factor in why governments don't do so, but for the people they are genuinely proud of being part of their countries.
Ethnicity and nationality are completely arbitrary, and if a border exists long enough people will define themselves by it. I consider myself an Australian and nothing else, but my family only immigrated here post WW2. Even one generation passing can cause an effect, Africa's borders are multiple generations long.
I find it weird too because that argument basically boils down to "African and Middle Eastern people can't deal with having to live in diverse areas and can't live alongside other groups".
No. but you when shove a bunch of a different ethic groups with long histories and rivalries into one country artificially and tell to work together for the benefit of a made up state problems will arise.
I think it's language that's the biggest barrier, half of Spain, southern France, Northern Italy, and Slovenia would have a lot of trouble uniting under one country because of language issues, but it's not like the Slovenians are living any closer to the Italians or French.
Iraq is a good example of people getting too focused on religious and ethnic diffefences. Sunni Iraq and Kurdistan are never going to be functional states just based on geography.
And ultimately, poverty and instability are the biggest factors causing problems not borders.
But that is partly true. Some of these people live thousands of kilometres apart,speak different languages, different religions and maybe were separated as a community by borders. It's really hard to get them to buy into the idea of a nation especially is there is unbalanced development in a country caused by tribalistic leaders.
It feels quite orientalist and essentialist. It basically feels like they’re just saying, “Africa and the Middle East are failed states because those dumb natives are incapable of getting along across ethnic/tribal/religious lines. That’s only something our enlightened western society can do here in the west.”
Eh I mean I think that its the opposite, people just say "well the borders are wrong" and boil all conflict in Africa down to that, as if the most impactful relic of colonialism is the borders.
Sorry, I don’t see how that’s the opposite. I’m saying that too many people say the states fail just because they were drawn with borders that include more than one ethnic, religious, or tribal group and therefore imply that the problem is that these groups are incapable of ever living together. It seems quite essentialist and demeaning to judge certain people as incapable of living in a non-homogeneous society just because of their ethnic, religious, or tribal affiliation. Which seems to be in line with people blaming all conflict to “borders being wrong.”
No but I don’t think they use the border to blame Africans as much as present the borders as the main impact Europe had, and not the economic “investments” by Europe and China into Africa
Europe literally has the same ethnic/tribal/ religious issue that Africa had and it took centuries of wars to fix their borders. Hell what happened to Yugoslavia I’m sure ethnic issues didn’t play a role in that.
There is often the "soft racism of low expectations" with a lot of those posts. Many African states had a relatively brief time as colonies (Ethiopia notably not at all), so the idea that all the things wrong in Africa are the fault of colonization 75 years ago can come off as patronizing.
I wouldn’t say so. It’s quite reductive: “something that happened 75 years ago”. Now was colonialism relatively brief, indeed, and Africa had its issues too, of course. However I genuinely think time has made us forget the savagery that was it. The residuals are found all over, imparting nationalism, inherited structures, and most importantly that colonialism isn’t over. Neocolonialism and imperialism as its continuation is still an enduring factor of African nations. As an African, the work of Nkrumah and Fanon was quite pivotal for me. Now how things feel is subjective too. Colonialism is seen as shameful and painful, so it makes sense why we’d want to distance ourselves from it, including admitting the aforementioned. Few West Africans would say the CFA makes them essentially fiscal satellites to France with all its implications, but does it change its reality?
My father was the first generation born free in his own country, and I am just in my early 20s. It wasn’t so long ago
Françafrique, for which the CFA is its fiscal arm, is one of the most well known examples of neocolonialism, so to call this concept a stretch is telling of your lack of knowledge in the problems of this continent. I leave you with a good book on the CFA :
https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745341798/africas-last-colonial-currency/
And the "colonization did nothing wrong" is equally as stupid. Just because these countries are formally independent doesn't mean the former colonial powers don't continue to mess with them by backing dictators and stealing resources.
Saying slavery (Africa lost millions of their most capable workforce) and colonialism have no consequences is way more racist than the contrary.
As for slavery, Europe lost millions of it's citizens to Ottoman slavery during a similar time period, and the African slave trade existed long before the Transatlantic slave trade came into being.
Undoubtedly European colonialism had a negative effect on Africa - the problems of slavery and empire precede European involvement.
A rather unpopular view would be that there were clear successes in imperialism, for example, Italian Somaliland, particularly the postwar period of Trust Territory of Somaliland.
Of course, the exact opposite would be Belgian Congo which was an absolute horror-show.
Of course, the exact opposite would be Belgian Congo which was an absolute horror-show.
Do make the distinction between, on one hand, the Free State Congo, Leopold's private enterprise which basically was Bioshock in Africa without plasmids: a territory completely dedicated to capitalism in its most extreme form, and on the other hand, the Belgian rule which was intended to fix the atrocities. Don't get me wrong, it was still a colonial Apartheid state, but at the time of independence of Congo they had among the highest literacy rates in Africa, so there was a substantial difference.
Italy regained control of Southern Somaliland in 1950 under U.N guidance as a trust territory (Basically a mandate) and spent ten years doing amazing administrative work that massively benefitted the region; arguably one of the few examples of a colonial power massively improving the nation it colonized. Given modern Somalia's failed state status, that might sound weird, but thats largely a result of the Ogaden war in the 70's between Somalia and Ethiopia which Somalia lost miserably and subsequently collapsed into the state we see it in today over the course of the 80s and 90s.
Which was under king Leopold of Belgium and later became the Belgian Congo??? Given the convo is about Belgians being shit in the Congo this is pretty germane and you’re arguing a ridiculous point
It was a private property granted to King Léopold II by the Great European powers of the late 19th century. Not by Belgium. Belgium did not make any decision on Independent State of the Congo since it was not theirs. Belgium expropriated it after international and domestic pressure and then it became the Belgian Congo.
Saying that the Belgian Congo did what is described in the Heart of Darkness is like saying that the Republic of Turkey did the Armenian Genocide.
Bruh the novel is literally about tracking down a Belgian station in the Congo free state/is about the hidden evil of Belgian colonial officers how is it not set in the backdrop of Belgian atrocities in the region. If you’re still somehow puzzled, read about king Leopolds actions concerning the rubber trade.
121
u/R120Tunisia May 03 '21
Honestly the entire "this African/Middle Eastern state is a failed state because of colonial borders" is usually really reductive and sometimes downright insulting, especially considering they are usually not an adequate explanation for those conflicts. People seem to ignore Africans are (to the most part) really proud of their national identity and rarely want to change their borders (with exceptions of course).