Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
Dayuhan,

Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...)
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?
Ignorance of Africa mixed in with the arrogance of "the smartest guy in the room" makes for a lethal cocktail. I have a friend who served in the USMC and later Rhodesia as an officer who went on to teach college in Virginia and has said that he constantly has to explain and re-explain that Africa is a content of 52 sovereign countries and not one country.

I read recently of a person who introduces himself as coming from Yorubaland but since the British colonization has become a Nigerian (for better or worse). Now considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about colonial borders does anyone else find it strange that the AU (and the OAU before) refuses to consider realigning colonial boundaries which cut peoples/tribes/nations in half? If they are not going to do anything about it why spend all the time complaining?

Then there are 2,000 languages in Africa (250 in Nigeria alone). I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

In east Africa the Arabs were the middle men in the slave trade. They bought from the local chiefs and then sold on to the Portuguese or whoever. If the demand rose the local chief brought slaves back from his raids as they were worth more alive than dead. Never heard anything about the role of the local chiefs of the dominant tribes (other than from Sengor) and not much said about the Arab middlemen/wholesalers. Strange isn't it. Especially when it works differently when it comes to the drug supply chain where the users are seen as victims and the middlemen and producers are routinely interdicted. Then again its the old producers argument of "if there was no demand there would be no incentive to produce and supply". You go figure.

It is sheer ignorance of Africa in most cases that makes western/foreign actions such a joke. If there are problems in Africa dig a little and you will find and ethnic/tribal/clan or religious issue at the source. Yet the "smart guys" half a world away make decisions oblivious of the issues and underlying circumstances. Made all the worse when the decisions result in death and suffering often on a massive scale.

I can remember in post apartheid South Africa when the Zulu nation wanted a federal system as opposed to a unitary state system. Guess what, the US and the West said they could not support the Balkanisation of South Africa. When challenged by saying the the federal powers wanted were less than other afforded to the states in the US the US representative just said ... "Oh!"

Yes the various areas of Africa vary greatly from each other. Realising this and accepting it is the first step towards success. Thereafter one can begin to try to understand the specifics of the particular areas of interest. Can there ever be an Africa expert? No, but there are certainly people who have a great understanding of Africa (mostly Africans themselves) and know where to find the specific on a particular area quickly.

It was always all about social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) until the colonisers arrived. Then we saw a switch to the more biblical "the meek shall inherit the earth (in literal translation). If the Brits had not intervened/colonised the south area of Africa and defeated the Zulu, the Ndabele and the Ngoni there would certainly not have been too many of the minor tribes in South Africa around, not the Shona in Zimbabwe nor the Chewa in Malawi.

We can go on and on... but lets leave it there for now.