That's probably a bit simplistic, Brandon. It wasn't western colonial powers who invented (or even systematized) slavery, and there's really no way to know, how much better (or worse) off Africa would be without the western colonial powers. However it is absolutely certain that there will never exist an absense of power, which means that if western powers (who were more developed than african)had not moved in, someone else would have.
Also if we turn from slavery to colonialism, it's debatable whether africa has benefitted from colonialism or not. A lot of western crimes come to mind, notably the Belgian rule in Congo, but to the extent that there is infrastructure, education and hospitals (no witchdoctors are not a substitute), it's thanks to the colonial powers.
If you look at India, there is absolutely no doubt, that colonialism was an advantage. There simply wouldn't be any India, if britain hadn't bothered to build it: They not only created infrastructure and gave india a common language so that they could govern, they are also responsible for creating the idea of india: It was british archaeologists who recoveded the indian history and secured historical monuments from destruction. They are arguably also behind the creation of hinduism as a unified religius idea.
Finally, you mention enlightenment: I think it's important to note that enlightenment is the only reason that anyone is free from opression. Without enlightenment there would be no human rights, no freedom of press, no democracy and no rights for women. Like it or not, liberal democracy is the only type of government which can secure the rights and the safety of it's citizens and therefore it is the best form of government (yet).
The movie (and current events in Iraq) suggest, that western countries should not try to force democracy on other cultures, but that does not affect the fact that it is a superior system.
reply
share
brandonlevi
18 years ago
western powers were certainly more developed in some ways. with the global exchange of ideas, africa certainly would not have remained a continent of witchdoctors. africa (and other developing nations) would look very different if they hadn't had hundreds of years of development and natural resources taken from them. i don't believe that most "countries" (as the colonial powers drew them) are better off for colonialism. i believe it is the chief reason (along factors such as the corruption of international banks, capitalism run amok, and trans-national corporate control of valuable natural resources) that what we call developing nations are decades or even centuries behind in terms of infrastructure and economic security. what would nigeria look like without shell sucking it dry of oil? i also don't think that nationals of developing nations couldn't have come up with many of the innovataions in the same or different forms that have allowed some nations to gain superiority. i don't believe the colonies and their people needed coloialism to develop.
but as you said, i guess we'll never know what a world without colonialism would look like. it's just a tragedy that greed blinds people from learning form their mistakes.
reply
share
tokenblackdude
18 years ago
I agree with most of your points. However, you should notice, that having natural resources is by no means a clear advantage for countries. All the European countries have gained their wealth by trading and manufacturing stuff which originate somewhere else.
The countries who have benefited from international trade, are the countries who have had technology and know-how (cultural factors probably also play a role) so that they were able to shift from production of natural resources to manufacturing of finished products.
reply
share