One hypothetical question that needs to be adressed... If Mr Mugabe was 'taken-out' of the equation how do you think it would pan out...

Who then would replace him - Would this vacuum cause a referendum to be held for political change or would it begin a scuffle of the opposing party’s to fill the gap?

Would the abolition of either the present political leader/party be for the good or would it be the beginning of a civil war…

If a civil war resulted and started to turn into a fighting frenzy, to right the wrongs of the last leader/administration. Would it be ‘right’ for the west to choose sides and give military aid to the chosen people or would a policy of non -interference be the acceptable thing to do…

quote:

They where well on their way to an iron-Age society despite the continents shortcomings when Colonialism struck.

They were already there. Mali had become deforested in the mid medieval period due to the demands of iron smelting. This led to collapse of the industry as there was little coal as in Europe (in Mali). Zimbabwe had one of the more important pre-colonial civilisations and lots of coal (same formations as in South Africa).

quote:

Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Saying that Africa could evolve into something akin to modern US had the colonials stayed home is flying in the face of all we know.

Not to mention the US is hardly an example of non-colonial evolved society. The US is basically an independent European society imposed over a conquered and 'ethnically cleansed' territory, and its level of cultural and ethnic mixing with the pre-colonial natives in even lower than in the Spanish Main American colonies.

I don't think American iron-age natives have evolved naturally to produce Argentina, Lincoln or the Marines, nor would have the African pre-colonial societies. Although they would have surely evolved to more complex and advanced iron-age states -the Inca "tahuantinsuyu" was well in this way. (The term "iron-age" meaning a degree of cultural development similar to those of the advanced cultures of European Roman and Dark Age times, and not necessarily a reference to the use of iron metallurgy).

Anyway, this "what-if" is rather pointless, since the lag in material culture and state growing had yet doomed these societies. I mean, the moment a civilization -in this case the Western civilization- gained the technological edge over all its competitors and thrived for resources to continue its development, full-scale colonialism was simply made unavoidable.

To consider the chance that *any* powerful civilization would have restrained itself from extend its dominion for its own sake, based solely on ethical or moral issues, is just naive.

quote:

Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
One hypothetical question that needs to be adressed... If Mr Mugabe was 'taken-out' of the equation how do you think it would pan out...

A good point indeed!

quote:

Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
And I`m afraid I cannot agree with you, friendly fire on your post. Perhaps Africa may have been as strong as America (it was a simple comparison), but I believe it would rival Europe and so come close to rival America too.

I would very much like to know what part of my little summary you do not agree with? Surely not all? Here's a little list:

* Sub-Saharan Africa suffer from very low soil fertility
* High yield crops like wheat isn't suited to most of Africa.
* Africa is sp****ly populated, even today the African population is about the same as the European (ca 900 millions).
* Advancement of society is dependent on dense populations.

The rest is a connect-the-dots sort of thing.

It bears repeating that Africa may have challenges but his does not mean that Africans are any less capable.

Plus Europe gained a lot of advantage from trade in ideas (e.g. seed drills, ploughs and the wheelbarrow from China)

quote:

* Advancement of society is dependent on dense populations.

At what point, though? Australia currently has very sp**** average population - does it have no advancement of society?

quote:

Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:

quote:

Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
And I`m afraid I cannot agree with you, friendly fire on your post. Perhaps Africa may have been as strong as America (it was a simple comparison), but I believe it would rival Europe and so come close to rival America too.

I would very much like to know what part of my little summary you do not agree with? Surely not all? Here's a little list:

* Sub-Saharan Africa suffer from very low soil fertility
* High yield crops like wheat isn't suited to most of Africa.
* Africa is sp****ly populated, even today the African population is about the same as the European (ca 900 millions).
* Advancement of society is dependent on dense populations.

The rest is a connect-the-dots sort of thing.

I`m getting really tired of bs talking to every bloody guy that wants to challenge me. One thing I learned in life is not to fight on 3-4 different fronts, and I`m not doing it again. i`ve really wasted my time responding to everyone and a forum just isn`t worth going at it again. I know if I go through your points bit by bit i`m just going to get really annoyed. Make up your own reasons and go back to the ORIGINAL point I was making which is stop using mugabe as an excuse to put Africa down instead of sidetracking then going `seafire, Seafire answer my point!` like just about everyone else I`ve responded to have done, with `Africa had slaves` and `that`s a great excuse to let mugabe off`.

People not following the point but following their own brainwashed POV.

There now you`ve gone and done it. I was trying to avoid getting annoyed too.

Wasn't Zimbabwe until recently a big wheat producer? There certainly seen to be a lot of runner beans flown into supermarkets from Africa. Whilst some parts of Africa do seem to have poor soils, is this true for all sub Saharan Africa? Or is the bean production to the detriment of long term soil fertility?

Isn't grain originally a Northern Hemisphere crop?

Yes Aaron beans are hard soil fertility.

The Sumerians used primitive single-tube seed drills around 1,500 BCE, but the invention never reached Europe. Multi-tube seed drills were invented by the Chinese in the 2nd century BCE.

The ancient Greeks had wheelbarrows and there is mention in 4th century Roman writings.

Seafire, I'm sorry if I have insulted you. I can assure you that was not my intention. The reason I challenged you is that I found your stand intriguing, and I am curious as to how you landed on the opposite conclusion from me.

Aaron: Yes, Zimbabwe has a wealth of natural resources, among them fairly fertile soil (after African standards). Situated southwards on the continent, the climate permits growing of Fertile Crescent crops, thus they mostly produce crops we know, rather that African crops like yams, teff, sorghum etc. After the independence they where starting to become the bred basket of that region, but production collapsed when Mugabe s "land reforms" began and after AIDS started wreaking havoc on the working population. While the soil is OK, the land still won't yield returns like in Europe. It is too dry, and not enough water for heavy irrigation (which in the end will only make the soil salty and infertile anyway).

Luftluver: Wheat, oats and barley all come from the Fertile Crescent (Middle East). Unlike most of the world, the climate there favours heavy-grain annuals. After domestication, grain spread East and West along the climate gradient, it took several thousand years for agriculture to cross into the wet zone of Middle and Northern Europe.

Zimbabwe even has oil

surely the Yanks have a spare sniper team , or 3

people called him racist , but ian smith was right

Have you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond? If not I'd recommend it. While not light reading, it's certainly an eye-opener.
_________________________________________________________________

after reading all the posts in this thread ive come to the conclusion that this book should be required reading for anyone who wants to post in a thread with this kind of subject matter.

Does anyone really think Tsvangarai would be any different? These people seem to start off with the best intentions,but pretty soon become just another dictator.Remember,not so long ago Mugabe was the hero.
And its all very well saying 'let Africa sort it out' but did anyone with any power say 'let the Arabs sort it out' when talking about dictators in Iraq or Afghanistan.