The Unfortunate Results of Independence (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

This morning, for some random reason, I was thinking of South Africa. I did a quick internet search and surprisingly ran across this article published today. Originally from Bloomberg, but it was behind a paywall. The Washington Post also published it. I was able to view it since the Post allows limited access before being forced to subscribe.

South Africa Is on the Road to Becoming a Failed State

Why the concern with South Africa?
One of the negative themes sweeping the Western world today is that colonialism was bad. Period. But was it really?
On its face, colonialism appears bad from the context of: 1) depriving a group of people of their independence and freedom. and 2) managing that group for the benefit of the colonial power. Nevertheless, there is an inconvenient truth that gets dismissed outright and is rejected if brought-up; that is: are the newly independent "states" capable of ruling themselves?

Richard Cookson, the author, does not address that topic. He does observe:

South Africa fits into a wearyingly and depressing pattern. Since gaining independence, almost all sub-Saharan countries have been riddled with conflict, often tribal, and brazen corruption. The only real exception, Botswana, is mostly comprised of one tribe, the tswana. But as a region, sub-Saharan Africa ranks at the bottom of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, below that bastion of probity, Latin America. Why sub-Saharan Africa has done so dismally is moot. Although South Africa ranks higher than most of the rest of sub-Saharan Africa on Transparency’s scale, its score has been dropping in recent years. It now rates South Africa at the same level as when Zuma was forced to resign.

The reason is that South Africa’s dominant post-apartheid leitmotifs have been corruption and theft. If, under Zuma, they thundered loudly, under Ramaphosa they have been less brassy but no less forceful. Hence, the more or less perpetual crisis that now afflicts the country. Crime is rampant. The police are widely reported to take bribes. Companies routinely pay politicians for contracts. Basic services, such as sanitation and water, are often unavailable. In a 2020 audit of the 257 municipalities, only 27 received a clean bill of health from the Auditor General.

This is also were I make my segue to what is happening in the US under the Biden administration. Under the Biden administration, the US is heading down the same road that South Africa and much of sub-Saharan Africa have taken since becoming independent. Should the US continue down the path that it is currently pursuing, South Africa may figuratively serve as the example of what will happen to the US.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I do not necessarily disagree with your perception, @Steve R. - but the question is WHY?

I offer some possible reasons - subject to the fact that I have only a distant view and must interpret what I have seen and heard. In many of those countries, overall education was limited due to any or all of poverty, educational limitations, religious restrictions, and a despotic desire to suppress the populace.

If you look at the Maslow pyramid, you find that Survival is on top, with Subsistence right behind it, followed by Satisfaction and Security. If the poor countries in question cannot assure daily survival or longer-term subsistence, people will do what they must to reach those goals, laws be damned. When the warlords, fat cats, and greedy politicians drain cash away from the people on the low end of the economic chain, you get conditions ripe for crime, drugs, and other perverse activities as a way to drain money away from those rich enough to be able to afford it. It is one reason that I don't TOTALLY abhor the idea of welfare support. My argument with welfare assistance is degree, not kind.

With the USA having the COVID catastrophe, money flow was disrupted as businesses were disrupted. PLEASE let us not get into whether anyone was right or wrong to do what they did... at least for THIS discussion. The businesses were damaged and that is a fact. People were out of work and that is a fact. Proper or improper, it happened.

People in the USA perhaps SHOULD have found work - but businesses weren't hiring for a while. Rent payments were down due to the eviction moratorium. "Durable item" purchases were limited. Cash that SHOULD have been flowing WASN'T flowing, and the Survival/Subsistence segment of the population was therefore threatened due to insufficient cash flows in their microcosms of the overall economy. Therefore, we have rising crime rates, internal bickering over monetary allocation, and general malaise in many parts of the USA. The people in Washington DC should do something about it, but the perpetual clamor of constituents with their hands out saying "If you want my vote, make it worth my while" tend to drive our elected representatives to make deals with the devil.

Authoritarian governments don't actually do any better than democratic governments when it comes to instability. They have the same kinds of corruption, greed, and a deeply suppressed populace. People find a way to defy their leaders through black markets, malicious obedience, and "gaming" the system. Passive-aggressive techniques abound.

Look at the current young generation in China, taking a "live for today" attitude and not making families at a time when China DESPERATELY needs a young workforce. Their aging workforce is the next Chinese bubble.

Look at the young men in Russia who, when Putin called out for conscription, voted with their feet.

Look at the French rioting in the streets over unilaterally-decided changes in the retirement age.

We could go on. The point is that it is always a battle of survival between the haves and the have-nots. Evolution, long before there was even a civilization to be found, was about getting a share of the limited food available in the area. It all ties in. The cause is always the same - not having enough to go around. The manifestation may change, but it's all the same old story, not really a fight for love or glory, and that you can't deny. The fundamental things still apply as time goes by.

(Sorry, my muse kicked in.)

 

[tmyers]

I dont know why, but this reminded me of a quote I heard in a movie once, now whether or not it was a legitimate quote from someone or just part of the movie, I do not know. The quote was (paraphrasing):
"People are inherently violent. If you lock people in a room, it wont be long before they start coming up with ways to kill one another. Why else do you think we invented politics and religion."

 

[Steve R.]

I offer some possible reasons - subject to the fact that I have only a distant view and must interpret what I have seen and heard. In many of those countries, overall education was limited due to any or all of poverty, educational limitations, religious restrictions, and a despotic desire to suppress the populace.

Like you, "I have only a distant view and must interpret what I have seen and heard.", much of my pontification is not based on any concrete evidence, but on what I have incidentally read over the years in the media.

One of the points that I did not expound upon, is that most of the then colonial states, were based on artificial boundaries. They were not based on any nation/state concept. Cookson notes: "The only real exception, Botswana, is mostly comprised of one tribe, the tswana." The unintended consequences of creating a new independent political state based on old fictional colonial boundaries is that the tribes may not get along. One example being the Rwandan genocide as part of the Rwandan civil war. In a sense, this is not part of a former colonial "state" not being ready for independence, but an example of improper nation creation.

Another aspect that I should have reviewed, the Western powers gave-up their colonies apparently during a period of time when Marxism was "exploding" across the third world. As such, the colonial political system was replaced my socialistic dictators who immediately rejected the old political system, seized the assets, and even arrested those who were part of the old colonial establishment. This supposedly "clean" break from the old to the new, has proven to be very destructive. The economy of Zimbabwe, as one unresearched example, was decimated by the post-colonial government attacking White farmers. Which points out the need to maintain colonial era policies into the post colonial era. Zimbabwe to return land seized from foreign farmers. According to the article: "The seizures were meant to redress colonial-era land grabs but contributed to the country's economic decline and ruined relations with the West."

Ironically, these seizures to redress past oppression mimics what the far left is doing in the US today, as reflected by their demands for "reparations". The Biden administration appears also supports "clean breaks" from the past, without laying any proper foundation. For example, the stifling of oil and gas production and forcing the public to convert to (claimed) clean electrical energy, yet clean energy is not yet ready for prime-time as a legitimate source of power.

If you look at the Maslow pyramid, you find that Survival is on top, with Subsistence right behind it, followed by Satisfaction and Security. If the poor countries in question cannot assure daily survival or longer-term subsistence, people will do what they must to reach those goals, laws be damned. When the warlords, fat cats, and greedy politicians drain cash away from the people on the low end of the economic chain, you get conditions ripe for crime, drugs, and other perverse activities as a way to drain money away from those rich enough to be able to afford it. It is one reason that I don't TOTALLY abhor the idea of welfare support. My argument with welfare assistance is degree, not kind.

The Maslow pyramid explains a lot. No disagreement here.

 

[Isaac]

What you have documented here seems to be a reasonably well-founded evidence that indigenous or near-indigenous freedom very often does not turn out to have happy results for those it involves.

And that is just one thing.

Taken as a whole, the most progressive, activist-type of viewpoints on the subject of colonial history seem to be pretty misleading.

As I always say, the Pendulum swing ...

Formerly, it may have been true that people were teaching/accepting/learning a view of colonial (British, US) history that was "too rosy" in favor of the settlers.

So some correction was needed. It is well and good for people to learn a balanced truthful reality of both the good and evils that were done by ALL sides, including the American/British.

But a truthful reality of the good and evils of all sides. Not just "the evil of the settlers" side.

The old fashioned emphasis on the white settlers bringing law, order, modern tools for well-being, and forms of democracy to the indigenous may have been too one-sided, excluding from the picture facts about murder, genocide, failed promises, and whatever else.

However, the pendulum has now swung so far to the other direction that it, itself, is equally untrue and misleading.

There is no reason to exclude the reality that many indigenous Americans' lives also included a level of barbarism, torture, slaughter, domestic abuse/domination/ra**, and general suffering of less-civilized societies, ..... a level that was greatly reduced (improved) by the coming of civilization.

The truth lies in between what was, perhaps, the rosiest view vs. the worst (current) view.

And of course, all of mankind's history involves one group conquering another.

Unless you can trace your ancestors back to the the Big Bang Theory or the Garden of Eden, or prove that you were literally the first human being on earth to lay eyes and put down a stake on a piece of Earth, then: There is no such thing as "original", I fear.