Comments by "" (@orboakin8074) on "hoser"
channel.
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
@mr-mr-101 I see your point and I agree to an extent. But a few things i will point out out:
-Some colonial systems =\=good administrative systems as history shows in the case of places where the British colonized versus places where the Spanish, Portuguese, Arabs and Germans colonized. This usually is determined by other factors like geography, climate, time period of adaptation and ethnic makeup.
-I never said that the colonialists (even the better ones like the British) left all those good systems in place out of altruism. I mainly said that it was for their own benefit and it later on went to benefit their former colonies. For example, Botswana was a country colonized by the British but after the end of colonialism, the leadership of the country under Seretse Khama actually kept and modified the infrastructure, economics systems and administrative processes and trade connections left in place by the British in order to further develop and improve his country. Today, Botswana is one of the most economically stable, politically stable and least corrupt countries in Africa. This would not have been the case without the British systems and his leadership.
-Your point about improper transition methods after colonialism is also a correct one. With much of Africa, there was largely no coalescing of peoples into larger societal units that eventually transitioned into proper nation states. this was largely due to climate and geography. heck! Most of the people's living in many African countries only began interacting and forming national identities as a result of colonialism, because prior, no national languages or binding forms of national identity existed. That is also why there were many separation attempts post-colonialism. That being said, these flawed models the colonialist left us with here are better than having nothing to begin with. What we need to do in Africa is work with, and improve on them rather than tear them down and invite national disunity and multiple socioeconomic problems.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@Rodario10TUNISIAN thanks for sharing and I do agree that some countries were negatively impacted by colonialism but this was mainly due to the colonial powers and the systems they used. You mention your country, Somalia, and the history of colonialism from the Arabs and Italians certainly did not leave your country in a great state but what about Somaliland that was colonized by the British and is the most stable and economically sufficient part of the region? Also, here in Nigeria, our federal government owns the majority of our oil and gas, not any foreign companies as you think. We simply let foreign companies do business here because we need more trade and development and isolating our economy will not help. The countries in Africa that tended to be colonized by the British usually ended up with better socioeconomic and political structures compared to others because the British had a habit of instilling those principles and foundations on them. That is why places like Kenya, Botswana, Ghana, and others are more stable and doing well. Finally, regarding Libya, NATO was not the only reason that country fell. Gaddafi regime was already oppressing some of his population and this caused the civil war. NATO definitely messed up by helping the rebels but they didn't create the rebels.
2