I wasn’t impressed with the Case for Colonialism article. The backlash was overblown—not because the argument was strong, but because it lacked substantial data. I remember the article rested on emotional appeals to the issues with Cabral, the Guinea-Bissau leader. It’s better to let ideas be published and then critique them with evidence.
I’m open to charter cities, but they’re a mixed bag. Some, like Fordlandia, were failures, while Shenzhen is arguably the most successful SEZ ever. Hong Kong and Macau serve as strong examples of colonial economic success. To say that charter cities will work because of the existence of Hong Kong & Macau isn't really a slam dunk argument when you know the success and failures of these programs in different areas.
A very crude way to test the “case for colonialism” is by comparing colonized vs. non-colonized African countries, mainly Ethiopia and Liberia. Ethiopia defeated Italy in 1896 and remained sovereign in the League of Nations until Italy occupied it in 1936. Ethiopian rebels fought until liberation in 1941, and historians and Ethiopians will say Ethiopia was briefly occupied, but never colonized. Liberia was independent since the 1870s. Based on the Maddison Historical GDP data, most African colonies were wealthier than Ethiopia in 1960, though Liberia was richer than many African nations at the time—albeit under Americo-Liberian apartheid.... so incomes were horrifically skewed. Granted the counterfactual is just two countries... but it shows how inconclusive to say colonialism was since you had Ethiopia worse off than the colonies and Liberia "better off than the colonies (for a small few Americo-Liberians)".
Fast forward to the 2020s, and the story shifts. Over half of Africa has moved to at least lower-middle-income status, while Ethiopia and Liberia remain among the poorest, with Ethiopia only about to approach lower-middle income this decade & Liberia has been ruined to low income status through its civil wars. You have some moderate "success stories" with some upper-middle income African countries like Botswana, Namibia, Mauritius, and Seychelles (again with all the caveats... Botswana and Namibia are extremely unequal... Mauritius and Seychelles basically live off tourism, flag of convenience, & offshore finance and have small populations). But the point is now you have 10 Sub-Saharan African countries poorer than Liberia and 20 poorer than Ethiopia out of the 48 Sub-Saharan African countries. But I would argue the status of each African country has more to do with their history of post-independence governance more than if they were colonized or not.
You totally could say that. It was basically apartheid where African Americans were on top.
The overall point is that it's hard to say if colonization would make African countries richer. Even if we removed Liberia, we are left with Ethiopia for non colonized countries. Ethiopian incomes are pretty middle of the road in sub-saharan africa right now. Showing not much of a difference between being colonized or not colonized.
Ethiopia's struggles stem more from its history than its landlocked status, as
1) Botswana and Eswatini are also landlocked and are far richer
2) Ethiopia had coastal access post WW2 until Eritrea's secession in 1993. Post WW2, Ethiopia has had more time with a coast than as a landlocked state.
Emperor Haile Selassie resisted land reform and reforming the feudalist system, keeping the peasantry in poverty. A devastating famine killed hundreds of thousands, but he refused foreign aid out of national pride. Frustration with feudalism led to a communist coup by the Derg.
The Derg implemented land reform but governed disastrously, causing mass starvation through collectivized farming. Ethiopia also fought wars on multiple fronts—against Somalia and internal rebels, including the Eritreans, Oromos, Ethiopian Somalis, Afar, and Tigrayans. The brutal conflict only ended when the Derg collapsed, Eritrea seceded, and Ethiopia became landlocked.
Ethiopia only started growing again once the Tigray People Liberation's Front took over in post-communist Ethiopia, from $100 a year to around $1K a year. Landlocked status is definitely an issue but I would argue knowing Ethiopia's actual economic history is much more important than its relatively recent landlocked status.
Criticism of colonialism tend to be highly selective, focusing on European colonialism on non-Europeans to the exclusion of all else. The Ottoman Empire colonized much of Southern Europe. Russia and Germany conquered and settled Poland for many years. Britain colonized Ireland. The Barbary States raided for slaves across much of the Mediterranean coasts.
Obviously this caused lots of human suffering. But it's unclear that South Eastern Europe, the Mediterrenean coast, Poland and Ireland were greatly harmed by colonialism/slave raiding in that their national development would be much higher without it. (Communism and demographic change is another matter).
Likewise, the Belgians were not terribly pleasant. Neither were many African rulers. Queen of Ranavalona I of Madasgascar reduced its population by half during the early 19th century.
You might be interested in some of the work by Nigel Biggar, who started a research project at Oxford on empire. I have not followed the research it produced, but I remember the controversy when he first even posed the question whether there were moral goods that came from empire.
I dont get it, why focus on the article when he has an entire book answering his critics arguments and extending his arguments. This is exactly what you're looking for no? Suggest reviewing this and Nigel beggar's colonialism: a moral reckoning.
And that's only because Africa uses a lot of its agricultural potential to grow non-food crops for the rest of the world -- coffee, tea, cocoa, tobacco, cotton, rubber, you name it. If you've eaten chocolate lately, there's about a 75% chance the cocoa came from West Africa. Places like Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire aren't food-sufficient because they grow cocoa, export it, and use the profits to import food.
-- You know who else is a net importer of food? Germany. Yet nobody seems to point to this as evidence of Germany's intractable backwardness.
I wasn’t impressed with the Case for Colonialism article. The backlash was overblown—not because the argument was strong, but because it lacked substantial data. I remember the article rested on emotional appeals to the issues with Cabral, the Guinea-Bissau leader. It’s better to let ideas be published and then critique them with evidence.
I’m open to charter cities, but they’re a mixed bag. Some, like Fordlandia, were failures, while Shenzhen is arguably the most successful SEZ ever. Hong Kong and Macau serve as strong examples of colonial economic success. To say that charter cities will work because of the existence of Hong Kong & Macau isn't really a slam dunk argument when you know the success and failures of these programs in different areas.
I wrote about the pros & cons of SEZs/charter cities here if you are interested: https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/special-economic-zones-a-premier
A very crude way to test the “case for colonialism” is by comparing colonized vs. non-colonized African countries, mainly Ethiopia and Liberia. Ethiopia defeated Italy in 1896 and remained sovereign in the League of Nations until Italy occupied it in 1936. Ethiopian rebels fought until liberation in 1941, and historians and Ethiopians will say Ethiopia was briefly occupied, but never colonized. Liberia was independent since the 1870s. Based on the Maddison Historical GDP data, most African colonies were wealthier than Ethiopia in 1960, though Liberia was richer than many African nations at the time—albeit under Americo-Liberian apartheid.... so incomes were horrifically skewed. Granted the counterfactual is just two countries... but it shows how inconclusive to say colonialism was since you had Ethiopia worse off than the colonies and Liberia "better off than the colonies (for a small few Americo-Liberians)".
Fast forward to the 2020s, and the story shifts. Over half of Africa has moved to at least lower-middle-income status, while Ethiopia and Liberia remain among the poorest, with Ethiopia only about to approach lower-middle income this decade & Liberia has been ruined to low income status through its civil wars. You have some moderate "success stories" with some upper-middle income African countries like Botswana, Namibia, Mauritius, and Seychelles (again with all the caveats... Botswana and Namibia are extremely unequal... Mauritius and Seychelles basically live off tourism, flag of convenience, & offshore finance and have small populations). But the point is now you have 10 Sub-Saharan African countries poorer than Liberia and 20 poorer than Ethiopia out of the 48 Sub-Saharan African countries. But I would argue the status of each African country has more to do with their history of post-independence governance more than if they were colonized or not.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-bank-income-groups?time=latest
Overall, I remember that guy made strong declarative statements that had tenuous foundations.
"Liberia was independent since the 1870s."
Could one argue that Liberia was a case of Africans being colonized by African-Americans?
You totally could say that. It was basically apartheid where African Americans were on top.
The overall point is that it's hard to say if colonization would make African countries richer. Even if we removed Liberia, we are left with Ethiopia for non colonized countries. Ethiopian incomes are pretty middle of the road in sub-saharan africa right now. Showing not much of a difference between being colonized or not colonized.
Ethiopia's poor performance should be understood in light of the fact that it's landlocked. If you look at other landlocked African countries, they don't tend to fare much better. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank-constant-usd
Ethiopia's struggles stem more from its history than its landlocked status, as
1) Botswana and Eswatini are also landlocked and are far richer
2) Ethiopia had coastal access post WW2 until Eritrea's secession in 1993. Post WW2, Ethiopia has had more time with a coast than as a landlocked state.
Emperor Haile Selassie resisted land reform and reforming the feudalist system, keeping the peasantry in poverty. A devastating famine killed hundreds of thousands, but he refused foreign aid out of national pride. Frustration with feudalism led to a communist coup by the Derg.
The Derg implemented land reform but governed disastrously, causing mass starvation through collectivized farming. Ethiopia also fought wars on multiple fronts—against Somalia and internal rebels, including the Eritreans, Oromos, Ethiopian Somalis, Afar, and Tigrayans. The brutal conflict only ended when the Derg collapsed, Eritrea seceded, and Ethiopia became landlocked.
Ethiopia only started growing again once the Tigray People Liberation's Front took over in post-communist Ethiopia, from $100 a year to around $1K a year. Landlocked status is definitely an issue but I would argue knowing Ethiopia's actual economic history is much more important than its relatively recent landlocked status.
Criticism of colonialism tend to be highly selective, focusing on European colonialism on non-Europeans to the exclusion of all else. The Ottoman Empire colonized much of Southern Europe. Russia and Germany conquered and settled Poland for many years. Britain colonized Ireland. The Barbary States raided for slaves across much of the Mediterranean coasts.
Obviously this caused lots of human suffering. But it's unclear that South Eastern Europe, the Mediterrenean coast, Poland and Ireland were greatly harmed by colonialism/slave raiding in that their national development would be much higher without it. (Communism and demographic change is another matter).
Likewise, the Belgians were not terribly pleasant. Neither were many African rulers. Queen of Ranavalona I of Madasgascar reduced its population by half during the early 19th century.
You might be interested in some of the work by Nigel Biggar, who started a research project at Oxford on empire. I have not followed the research it produced, but I remember the controversy when he first even posed the question whether there were moral goods that came from empire.
https://nigelbiggar.uk/ethics-empire/
I dont get it, why focus on the article when he has an entire book answering his critics arguments and extending his arguments. This is exactly what you're looking for no? Suggest reviewing this and Nigel beggar's colonialism: a moral reckoning.
Today, Africa imports 85% of its food. R.I.P. Rhodesia
That's a non-fact statement. Africa currently imports about 10% of its food. And most of that is because of just two countries -- Nigeria and the DRC.
Doug M.
Even though I’m a Russian bot, I’ll admit that I have no idea where I got this stat. Seemed credible at the time, but I think it’s closer to 30%
No, it's literally around 10%.
And that's only because Africa uses a lot of its agricultural potential to grow non-food crops for the rest of the world -- coffee, tea, cocoa, tobacco, cotton, rubber, you name it. If you've eaten chocolate lately, there's about a 75% chance the cocoa came from West Africa. Places like Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire aren't food-sufficient because they grow cocoa, export it, and use the profits to import food.
-- You know who else is a net importer of food? Germany. Yet nobody seems to point to this as evidence of Germany's intractable backwardness.
Doug M.
https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/the-rationalisations-of-colonialism