Novelist Chigozie Obioma’s op-ed at Foreign Policy is a grab-bag of truths, half-truths, and balderdash. In the “truth” category is this:
Nigeria, the most populous black nation on Earth, is on the brink of collapse. The machineries that make a nation exist, let alone succeed, have all eroded. One might argue that the nation’s creation by self-seeking white imperialists engendered its failure from the beginning, as I did in my recent novel. But this is only a part of the cause. A culture of incompetence, endemic corruption, dignified ineptitude, and, chief among all, destructive selfishness and greed has played a major role in its unravelling. The same, sadly, can be said for most other African nations. States like Zimbabwe, Cameroon, and Equatorial Guinea are farcical democracies ruled by men who exclusively cater to their interests and those of their clipped circles.
and that’s barely scratching the surface. The Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of the Congo are in very rough shape.
I wonder what he thinks of Botswana which seems to be a success story would seem to be the exception that proves the rule. My assessment is that in the final analysis whether you’re talking about Nigeria or Russia or Ukraine or Botswana or the United States institutions matter.
I would place the blame he casts on non-blacks for the problems of sub-Saharan African countries in the category of half-truths, see this:
The Arabs enslaved tribes and nations and then colonized and evangelized them. Then came the Europeans, who, persuaded the Africans were of an inferior race, divided up the continent over lunch in Berlin in 1884. They carted off a large population of its people — sometimes leaving entire villages almost empty — and brought those who remained on the continent under their rule. So complete was the transformation that no black nation retained its ancestral nationhood, national language, or national identity. And today we often hear of how China or India or some other nation is “taking over†Africa economically.
and this
One might argue that the nation’s creation by self-seeking white imperialists engendered its failure from the beginning, as I did in my recent novel.
They are half-truths for any number of reasons. The Arabs and the Europeans certainly didn’t help and I agree that they wrought enormous harm. But he fails to recognize that slavery existed in sub-Saharan Africa before Europeans began transporting slaves and probably before Arab contact there as well and the slavery was a consequence of disunity and war. It was disunity and war that created the openings for Arab and European invaders—they didn’t arise ex nihilo and they’re still dragging sub-Saharan Africa down.
But in my opinion this is balderdash:
Black elites should allow for self-criticism and soul-searching and for the restoration of the Pan-Africanist movement with an eye toward building sustainable black nations. We must come to realize that to a great extent the fate of the black man in America is inextricably linked to that of his brother in Africa. Although largely unacknowledged in American political discourse, Jim Crow ended in part because of the African Independent movements.
relying on post hoc propter hoc reasoning. The abolition of slavery, then Jim Crow, and then the slow process of creating a single society rather than two, a process still incomplete, was the work of American whites and American blacks almost completely without contact with sub-Saharan Africans.
In what category should the following assertion be placed?
Black elites and activists across the world have adopted a culture of verbal tyranny in which they shut down any effort to reason or criticize us or black-majority nations by labeling such attempts as “racism†or “hate speech.†Thus, one can be certain that any suggestions that our race may indeed need to do something to remedy our situation will not be aired — not by the terrified people of other races. And anyone within our race who makes such a suggestion will be deemed weak and pandering or a sellout, as U.S. President Barack Obama has been repeatedly called.
Slavery is nothing new. It has been around since humans were able to pick up rocks, smash skulls, and remember the who and why of that smashing. For people who have been taught the nonsense of the modern world, this is not possible. Slavery was invented 400 years ago by racists as a way to keep the black man down.
I have a working theory that the Romans and British were somehow able to have a long term effect on the people they ruled, and I think it was because they were mostly concerned about commerce and economic matters. As long as the taxes were paid and trade flowed, they usually allowed the people as much or more freedom than they originally had, and they provided a template for the type of government and institutions needed to run a country.
The US, Canada, and Australia are the typical examples, but Singapore, Hong Kong, India, and Indonesia are non-Anglo examples. In the Middle East, Egypt is the only partially functioning country, and they were under British control for a period of time (probably too short).
On the other hand, the French leave a country as a basket-case. Is there any place that the French have not totally left f*cked-up?
Internally, the Jewish people play a unique role in transforming a country, or it may be the way a country treats its Jewish population that determines its destiny.
The author could have added many Central and South American countries to his list. Venezuela should be a petro chemical and possibly manufacturing powerhouse, but they cannot keep the store shelves stocked. (According to free trade theology, free trade would ensure the Venezuelan store shelves would be stocked.)
The Brits ruled Nigeria, too. And the jury’s still out on South Africa. We’ll soon have a good indication when we see how SA weathers the transition of power from the ANC.
I forgot to mention South Africa, but there were Dutch there also. The British have a lot to answer for including within their own lands, but there are too many successes or ongoing successes for it to simply be chance.
Japan and S. Korea could be considered second-hand beneficiaries of the secret sauce.
It has been a working hypothesis for a while now. The Mongols under Genghis were starting this type of model, but it fell apart with his death. There may be others I am not familiar with or have forgotten about.
The Brits were in Rhodesia, too. No Dutch there. It’s now Zimbabwe and is a total wreck.
Again, I think the deciding factor has more to do with whatever synergy occurred between colonialism and the underlying institutions.
The British did not see a lot of business opportunities in tropical Africa, and thus the extent the extent of imperial interaction there was relatively mild. That may not be how locals saw it, but the first time British troops set foot in Nigeria was to overthrow the pro-slave leadership as part of its efforts to end the Atlantic slave trade. Some argue this was pretextual, which I doubt, the British liked to work with existing elites, whereas here they had essentially aligned themselves with freed slaves, the ultimate outsiders.
Nineteenth century British imperialism depended on private interests being willing to invest enough capital into a country to justify the costs of troops. Western Africa to the eyes of British bankers lacked sound money (conch shells), adequate methods of security for investments (legally enforceable mortgages), and had numerous tribal conflicts that would draw the British into difficult interior conflicts. Still Nigeria (and Ghana) appeared to have potential, but the degree of British imperialism (meaning the degree of foreign investment) was far less than India, certainly less than Egypt and probably less than Argentina.
I’m not sure what that all means, but the area was not perceived that promising before the continent was divided, which probably had to do as much with geography as anything. Europeans didn’t gain advantages in technology without the benefits of trade of goods and knowledge with Asia. I’m not sure what people think Africa would look like today without outside intervention.
Average IQ in the 70’s. Nuff said.