Condottiere
LE
This is not a Brexit thread. Let's just put that one to the side and agree that we disagree. Time will tell.
There's a good case for claiming that the USSR won the war. At the very least without Russian involvement, the western allies would have found it far more difficult, costly and a longer slog to defeat Germany.
A weaker US may not necessarily be a bad thing. Since the end of the Cold War America has abused its position as the sole world superpower.
The breakup of the EU seems to be a dearly held wish of many in the UK. The EU will do just fine without the UK (as I'm sure the UK will do just fine without the EU). Without the UK, EU integration into some form of Federation of States or USE seems more likely.
As with any successful society. The laws of the most Western society are fairly rigid, while those of the more corrupt nations may seem so but are malleable, and vulnerable to the cheat, the thief and the wilier climber of the greasy pole. Merit may well be involved, but only to the individual's benefit, not society's. We (Western society) haven't yet solved that conundrum (consider Trump, Blair etc) but we'd like to think that we're getting there, even if we aren't.the 'Legion' as with most effective fighting forces, depends for its survival and as importantly its success, on having a rigid organizational structure that is composed of agreed rules and laws, that will have consequences if broken. This framework is the basis that enables a collection of individuals to work or fight as one.
Disregarding the economic exploitation, the developmental analogy would be social services taking children away from their parents and trying to raise them in a different way, straitjacketing them into what they saw as artifical structures and modes of behaviour. Some of these were better and some were worse (Leopoldian Congo as a brutal Sisters of Mercy orphanage springs to mind). However, the system was generally working towards a goal of bringing these children up to partake in the worldwide adult community. However the progress was broken in the children's very early adolescence, when suddenly the structures that they were growing up in were broken down and the young people were left adrift to their own devices. The "Lord of the Flies" on a continental level.
The second is deep-grained cultural norms and senses of allegiance. In much of sub-Saharan Africa before colonialism the highest form of allegiance was to one's tribe. Even where various tribes were unified under a central power, rule was carried out through the tribe. When looking at societal structure and allegiances, the individual and his immediate family comes first, then the expanded family or clan, then the tribe. There is innate distrust of anything beyond that. Due to the experiences of the above paragraph, if an individual is fortunate enough to gain a position of authority at any level of any organisation, his first duty is to see what he can get out of it to benefit himself, then his family, followed by his clan and finally his tribe. The upshot of this is that there is no sense of allegiance or responsibility to a higher societal entity which governs for the benefit of all.
So we're all hierachical pack animals at heart and the more fighty types form their own clique within? And in competition with other packs, ours has done better because of doing tribal stuff better?
Post colonialism saw in the main, the colonial country withdraw, but leave the very systems in place that had allowed, such places not only to function but to grow. The simple fact is now these countries, had the systems in place to give them an opportunity to trade in more advantageous circumstance, for themselves the very resources that once had just been taken. Although EU tariffs it must be said have not helped Africa, which for the moment is for another thread.
Despite the advantages of colonial systems infrastructure and systems of governance being left behind, sustaining both seems to be a consistently failing issue across much of today’s Africa.
While independence was undertaken during what you describe as “very early adolescence”. That it affected many children of that eras it can be said then, thus their future society. But it must be acknowledged that the speed of withdrawal from colonial countries was undertaken at haste, in part by the demands from the populace within such countries. The increasing financial costs of sustaining fully functioning colonies post World War Two, for western societies themselves struggling to maintain themselves, and perhaps most damaging for post-colonial Africa changing societal expectations and norms within western society, despite the majority having any substantive level of knowledge of the continent.
Thus once again proving the old saying right in that, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’
So it is little wonder then sadly then as these systems failed to be maintained and expanded on as this required hard work and effort or were deliberately discarded, that a "Lord of the Flies" environment across large areas seems to be the default result, for many post-colonial countries. Regardless of the wests organisational withdrawal many links continued to be maintained and various degrees of Aid offered.
Of course no group of people likes to have be exploited by outsiders and then once unshackled can be overly bitter about past injustices, but a successful groups push forward in adopting and or adapting some of the very systems that had been imposed on them, for the sustainability and advancement of its wider society.
One only has to look at the results of South Africa now seemingly intent on driving the white farmers, out of the country by measure of financial penalty at best and murderous barbarity at worst. Although one is hard pressed to find much criticism or condemnation of a developed African country choosing to adopt the Mugabe method of murderously ‘destroying’ a resource rich country in the media.
It is a sad fact that a continent that is still resource rich in many parts without, but without western aid be it food, money or resource management, the recipient country will inevitably collapse. And thus lose any vestiges of functioning systems, which can maintain a country and enabling it to function in today’s modern world. Thus also the worst aspects of simple tribal function and identity, come to the fore in every case violently, ensuring such societies remains simplistic and unsustainable.
We are talking decades of aid being pumped in to the continent and, while it is true that we have at times backed the wrong leader for political gain, and also turned a blind eye to some corrupt practices from western companies again mostly for political gain. This has not been the overarching design, intent or desire of most post-colonial western countries, despite the rantings of avowed Marxists and unknowledgeable 6th form debating societies.
So despite the continent being resource rich, with the addition of much developed world giving aid, the question is of course why, has and is the continent of Africa failing, and more so having a population growth rate that it cannot sustain alone.
As long as African society predominantly chooses to continue to cling to such “societal structure and allegiances”, they will never sadly evolve past being a feudal subsistence society.
The continent has not been denied access to the knowledge of the western world, not to its technology, yet it seemingly fails to absorb or more importantly value advancement from individual subsistence to collective economy of scale production, amongst the wider general populace, despite some pockets within each country doing so.
I believe it is without doubt that the ‘Cold War’ and aggressive proliferation of Marxist ideology across the continent, during that period in part has deeply encouraged populations to mistrust colonial systems that had been left to them, as alien to their own deep rooted cultural norms and thus to be actively discarded. I believe it has also played a part in subvert the delivery and embracement of education. Twisting it from a method of societal advancement to instead fostering a victim narrative, that leaves many of them un-educated and with no wish to advance other than for individual gain.
The tribal structure that runs through many of systems of governance and hierarchy. Predominantly is blood rather ability based, and thus inflexible, archaic and absolute regardless of negative outcome. Let alone fostering an understanding of responsibility.
Lastly the post-colonial western world and with no sense of irony, has and continues to strip the brightest, and best with immigration, and to some degree asylum policies that is leaving the continent without its own potential forward thinkers, and to use a dreadfully ‘right on’ description those who will be the ‘Agents of change’, and lastly the low skilled workforce required to effect change.
The exodus from Africa, from the over populated, badly lead and poorly resourced subsistence society areas, who ‘like this description or not’, are fundamentally both under developed educationally and societally stunted, and likely to remain so despite being allowed to enter and stay in the west, is not improving the nations they are fleeing from nor will it enhance the nations they are fleeing too.
The societal gap is too great. Yet the soft bigotry of low expectation, and overly emotional feelings seems to demand we rescue them from their own land… regardless of fact
A good post. I think what you have to say about tribalism rings true.I'm not an Africa expert, although I have worked in quite a few of its countries, the following is just my thoughts based on observation, experience and trying to work out why many things seem so wrong across Africa.
I recognise what you are stating, but it is not objective to lump people and societies together like this and categorise them. First and foremost we are all one race, the human race, with very minor differences between us. We all bleed red when cut, we all have the same needs that Maslow so succcinctly put together in a pyramid, we all have the same emotions. That is nature - human nature. In the Foreign Legion I trained and served alongside men of all races and all are able to compete equally in a meritocracy.
Much of the behavioural differences are down to history, culture and societal organisation. One could say that this is nurture on the national scale. I have come around to the theory that there are two major factors at play concerning sub-Saharan Africa.
The first is that of developmental inconsistency. The various African nations had relatively minimal interference from outside powers unless it was at the fringes of the continent for most of known history. Much of it did not geographically favour human organisation higher than the tribal level. Where economic and natural conditions favoured it, more highly organised societies arose. These societies were prevented from further self-development at their own pace by colonialism.
Disregarding the economic exploitation, the developmental analogy would be social services taking children away from their parents and trying to raise them in a different way, straitjacketing them into what they saw as artifical structures and modes of behaviour. Some of these were better and some were worse (Leopoldian Congo as a brutal Sisters of Mercy orphanage springs to mind). However, the system was generally working towards a goal of bringing these children up to partake in the worldwide adult community. However the progress was broken in the children's very early adolescence, when suddenly the structures that they were growing up in were broken down and the young people were left adrift to their own devices. The "Lord of the Flies" on a continental level.
The second is deep-grained cultural norms and senses of allegiance. In much of sub-Saharan Africa before colonialism the highest form of allegiance was to one's tribe. Even where various tribes were unified under a central power, rule was carried out through the tribe. When looking at societal structure and allegiances, the individual and his immediate family comes first, then the expanded family or clan, then the tribe. There is innate distrust of anything beyond that. Due to the experiences of the above paragraph, if an individual is fortunate enough to gain a position of authority at any level of any organisation, his first duty is to see what he can get out of it to benefit himself, then his family, followed by his clan and finally his tribe. The upshot of this is that there is no sense of allegiance or responsibility to a higher societal entity which governs for the benefit of all.
I'm sure there will be much disagreement about what I've written above, I am no expert, but having thought about all the crap I've seen in sub-Saharan Africa, this is the latest iteration of what I think the reasons for the problem are. As for a solution - that needs a better man than me.
A good post. I think what you have to say about tribalism rings true.
And as you say, we're all basically human and I can see the same thing happens in the USA, although its manifestations are different. Which is why you can envisage a possible break-up/down of their society.
And all of which goes against your argument for a European superstate. Human nature, its inherent tribalism, precludes it.
It's an idea for the 'elites', who are of course, a tribe.
And we can see examples of tribalism in this discussion - the taxpayer tribe, the non-old tribe, the non-disabled tribe etc, some of whom don't even realise their own tribalism (who needs to be culled from this over-populated world, in order that my idea of society can survive)
Once you take notice of tribalism, you can see it in virtually every human interaction.
Okay...who called in the bloody airstrike?!,Would you agree then, that because there is a tribal consideration, and thus identity driven element, in virtually every human interaction. Tribalism therefore should not be casually dismissed as either a inconsequential part or, some outdated primitive aspect of evolution that is not needed in maintaining a modern functioning society.
To my mind defining identity and thus tribal loyalties, as with so many aspects of life today and in the past is neither inherently good or bad, but the context of a situation, will govern its place, in the order of reasoning and decision making.
Also that for every negative aspect when considering identity, there is an equal and opposite positive consideration. Even with immutable characteristics, size, hair color, race etc.
Identity can bind or divide, so functioning and advancing societies have to balance the positive and negative aspects of identity and tribalism, as much as they have to to balance the individual against the collective. There is no stable constant state and the function of societal systems is to try to maintain smooth and small transitions between polar opposites.
That as societies develop and advance, for any system of governance that attempts to enforcing and maintain a singular rigid identity over a multi layered sophisticated society, is as doomed to failure, as expecting a simple society without any firm core ideological tenant, and that is so fluid that it constantly 'changes with the wind', thus cannot unify when required.
We may not like as reasonably stable and advanced society, to accept that identity is powerful ju-ju. History both good and bad shows this to be true and, the future if it chooses ignores its consideration, as a part of reasoning too problem solve will do so at its peril. As with everything its balance.
Everything will change and nothing will change. Look at the sentiments expressed in the first century (AD) graffiti on the walls of Pompeii and Herculaneum.
Tribalism therefore should not be casually dismissed as either a inconsequential part or, some outdated primitive aspect of evolution that is not needed in maintaining a modern functioning society.
Without US & British Empire aid, Russia would have struggled to turn the tide on Germany....
If you think the US has abused it's power, what do you call Russia's actions, or China's claim to huge areas of the South China Sea?
I don't see this "dearly held wish" being in any way expressed by those I would have thought most likely to feel that way. Mostly it's a regret that the EU has gone in a direction they feel is not one which would be of benefit to the UK as a whole in the long term...
I very much doubt the EU will hold together in its current form, let alone Federalise & there's no indication it would be welcome in many states.
Is there any, though? Certainly not from the much-vaunted middle class vanguard of democracy. They don't want the Party's rule overthrown for the simple reason that they are the Party - and the Party's mates, it's backers and it's major beneficiaries.China is still subject to those normal rules and they include political pressures growing from the growth of middle classes, disaffection from the disenfranchised and a yearn for democracy. Declaring yourself president for life isn't a good sign is it?