How many countries do WORSE post-independence?

[Master of Ossus]

I've noticed that everyone automatically slams imperialism--it removes peoples' rights by denying them reasonable representation, makes the colonized group's needs subservient to the needs of their overlords, and historically has created substantial discriminatory practices against a country's native residents. In short, it is everything that self-determination is not.

However, I also can't help but notice that some countries seem to degenerate into horrible shit-holes as soon as the imperial power leaves--often due to the sudden removal of a central authority. In large part, this is the fault of the imperialist in the first place--the European powers, for example, were notorious for establishing borders without rhyme or reason and then leaving the inhabitants of the newly independent "country" to fend for themselves. However, if this is the constant state of things and there is no way to deal with the legacy of imperialism it would actually favor continuing imperialism after it had already been started.

My question, then, is what percentage of countries actually do worse once the imperialists have left? Certainly, many African nations have fallen into this camp, and some Asian nations are still recovering. On the other hand, there are success stories of independence, and those should be recognized for what they are in order to figure out what steps unstable governments should take in order to improve their peoples' standards of living.

[Chmee]

America had to have a Civil War to resolve our internal political instabilities after we threw off our colonial masters, I don't see why it's any surprise that other countries go through equally horrific bloodshed and suffering as they mature to nationhood. You can't hurry history, there's no Instant Political Culture.*

We look at Africa and are horrified by the waste, violence, corruption and barbarity .... pretty much how Holland or Switzerland must have looked at us during the Civil War or the genocide of the Native Americans. A century here, a century there, it's nothing in the scope of history.




*just add Constitution and wait 30 minutes

[gizmojumpjet]

Wow, that's an interesting question, and difficult to begin analyzing faithfully. The first step is to determine the list of countries that have been subject to imperial domination. Are we to consider only imperial dominions established by European powers post X year? Huge chunks of the Eastern hemisphere have been dominated by various imperial powers throughout history, even if we go back only to AD 0. The Ottoman empire controlled areas that were later or earlier controlled by the Mongol and British empires respectively. Are we to consider any actions by the USA as imperial? The E.O.Japan controlled areas that were later controlled by France and others. All of Europe was once part of the Roman Empire...

In other words: Which imperialists, and how are we defining imperialism?

[gizmojumpjet]

Please forgive me.

The Ottoman empire controlled areas that were later or earlier controlled by the Mongol and British empires respectively.

Should read:

The Ottoman empire controlled areas that were earlier or later controlled by the Mongol and British empires respectively.

grumble grumble stupid trolls making the mods turn off 'edit' grumble grumble

[tharkûn]

Some places made extremely easy transitions to independence. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia come to mind. Likewise Czechoslovakia (the first time), Finland, Norway, Iceland, and the odd tropical island seem to have done rather well with minimal bloodshed.

[Xon]

Some places made extremely easy transitions to independence. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia come to mind.

These were colonies composed mostly of exported peoples from the British Empire, or those who had embraced British economic customs.

And no one gave a shit about the Australian Aboriginals, and they still dont.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Chile also managed to come to independence with relatively little bloodshed, though that was because they had a solid, long-term dicator in power. Brazil was good until the mid-90's, I think.

[Stark]

How about a sweeping statement, like 'achieving independence from a power that is technologically and culturally far more advanced leads to problems'. The Americans did all right for themselves, but even the Indians have problems, and the African colonies did even worse. Ancient empires usually did not have this technolgical/economic/politcal disparity, so it's a different kettle of fish.

[Lusankya]

That's why Africa's so screwed over. Southern Africa especially had a tribal culture prior to the Europeans arriving, so adapting to a more centralised bureaucracy is harder for them, especially when the bureacracy was implemented by people who a) didn't know and b) didn't care about the tribes' relationships with each other.

I think also for the Asian nations, there was more interaction between the Europeans and the locals because the Europeans could look at the Asian buildings and say "yep, that's culture alright", wheras when they looked at a tribal culture, the markings of the culture were much different from theirs because they had much less in common.

[Guardsman Bass]

Some places made extremely easy transitions to independence. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia come to mind.

These were colonies composed mostly of exported peoples from the British Empire, or those who had embraced British economic customs.

And no one gave a shit about the Australian Aboriginals, and they still dont.

What's interesting about these former colonies is the same reason why they are probably First World today. In these three areas, the original colonizers- the British- didn't simply attempt to make a buck and show national pride like what was done in Africa by simply dominating the locals; they actually attempted to annihilate the locals and set up a little New Britain. Along the way they brought most of their political and economic systems, plus the three were basically independent in all but name for a long time.

I can only name five African countries that I know of that didn't go to complete shit upon independence: Egypt, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, South Africa (if you define a 50 year racist police state as 'stable'), and Botswana (which was later roundly fucked by AIDS). Part of the problem, other than the political boundary issues mentioned, is that the Europeans generally did not give a fuck whether the locals developed their own viable national economies; they, in fact, discouraged. Another neat trick was like what was done in Nigeria with the Ibo, such as picking the small ethnic group most receptible to Christianity and the Europeans, and making them the superiors underneath Europeans, and thus an additional target for ethnic violence.

[General Brock]

Not an easy question to answer. In part, the newly independent former colonies were in many ways artificial constructs not reflective of what the indigens themselves would have developed; the way of governing, the borders, the ethnic mixes, were all imposed from above. Migrations from neighbors and other colonial subjects were not controlled by the indingens,

Add to this, the best of the indigenous inhabitants were discouraged and even killed, sometimes regardless of willingness to be co-opted, while the worst were promoted to positions of authority over their populations. The traditional means of communicating and resolving disputes were corrupted or banned; for example, most of these countries follow some form of Christianity, rather than the religions of their ancestors, which may have been better adapted to their environment, and certainly, owing allegiance to the local population, not some foreign church. Since in many societies, this is tied with their history, a lot of what they knew about themselves was lost. While certainy some indigenous practices might have been reprehensible, the fact is all cultures have standards, and a mix of good and bad, and the good was destroyed first in the colonization process.

There were differences between the colonized peoples. Places like Indonesia and the Sudan were already colonies of Islamic traders, China and Mesopotamia were long-civilized peoples, and others in Africa and North America were still hunter gatherers with different notions on what civilization should be all about. The more sophistcated cultures could make better use of the colonial order than others, while resisting it more effectively. This is not simply a matter of being able to construct factories and wear Italian fashions; some pastoral tribes in Africa were successful in retaining their cultural identity against missionaries and other genocidal assaults. In some rare cases, I think like Botswana, a colonial power was invited in to serve as a protector from other imperial powers, and that benevolent mandate was more or less taken seriously.

Although western altruism was a large part of the root of the decolonization process, there was also a cynical component; it was awkward and expensive for the imperialist-minded to continue with direct control of subject populations. Apart from the military expenses, the acceptance of a higher humanitarian standard in home countries of the imperialists was impacting on their ability to exploit the natives; giving them rights, having to cover up massacres, or not commit them at all, allowing freer immigration to the imperial homeland, for example. Generally being genuinely responsible to indigenous well-being was no longer an optional indulgence; it was becoming mandatory. Even using a local thug to rule at arms length was difficult, so long as there were direct legal responsibilities for the thug's actions. So, just when some natives might actually exact real compensations for being colonial subjects, the plug was pulled.

There is also the fact that the imperialists never really left. Whenever they could, a putatively independent colonial or quisling regime was left behind to govern in the interests of the former colonial masters, protected from scrutiny by 'national sovereignty' to deflect criticism of any mismanagement. The borders of the new country were drawn so as to ensure a measure of dependence on the former master nation, internal strife, and prevent a truly national consciousness from developing. This was deliberate, not because the colonials negotiators were drunkens idiots. There was also the jockeying for advantage amongst imperial powers, which included stirring up trouble in their rival's 'interests'.

Finally, the global system of international trade, despite supposed respect for the sovereign state, works againt new countries; they can't opt out for a while and develop more stability on relative isolation, and then meet the world more securely on its own terms. They have to play a hard game, against a stacked deck, and not surprisingly, some fare poorly.

[Surlethe]

That's why Africa's so screwed over. Southern Africa especially had a tribal culture prior to the Europeans arriving, so adapting to a more centralised bureaucracy is harder for them, especially when the bureacracy was implemented by people who a) didn't know and b) didn't care about the tribes' relationships with each other.

I think also for the Asian nations, there was more interaction between the Europeans and the locals because the Europeans could look at the Asian buildings and say "yep, that's culture alright", wheras when they looked at a tribal culture, the markings of the culture were much different from theirs because they had much less in common.

A corollary to the OP, then, is "In post-colonial/imperial regions, would redrawing borders to encompass pre-imperial cultural regions aid the transition?"

In other words, would redrawing borders to fit the pre-imperial tribes, rather than the way the European imperial powers fucked over the African nations, help at all?

[SirNitram]

Frankly, I've seen only one variable that improves a post-colony country's situation: The imperial power industrializing the territory. Rome was a good example of this: Even far-flung provinces benefitted from Roman roads and the like, and thus, had a leg up after the fall.

Those ex-colonies which were industrialized in the European spread across the globe came out relatively well(Canada and the US were both colony's, remember). The rest failed after the Imperial power withdrew.

But I've been in this camp for a while. It's easy to slam Imperialism. It's harder to accept what actually happens when you stop.

[Guardsman Bass]

That's why Africa's so screwed over. Southern Africa especially had a tribal culture prior to the Europeans arriving, so adapting to a more centralised bureaucracy is harder for them, especially when the bureacracy was implemented by people who a) didn't know and b) didn't care about the tribes' relationships with each other.

I think also for the Asian nations, there was more interaction between the Europeans and the locals because the Europeans could look at the Asian buildings and say "yep, that's culture alright", wheras when they looked at a tribal culture, the markings of the culture were much different from theirs because they had much less in common.

A corollary to the OP, then, is "In post-colonial/imperial regions, would redrawing borders to encompass pre-imperial cultural regions aid the transition?"

In other words, would redrawing borders to fit the pre-imperial tribes, rather than the way the European imperial powers fucked over the African nations, help at all?

Probably not. Usually, by the time the colonies achieved independence, they had been colonies for at least several decades, meaning that even amongst part of the native population, there was an incentive to keep the borders correct. Plus, recreating a country's borders to fit the tribal boundaries would be a serious pain in the ass that none of the former colonial powers would do, particularly if a certain tribe's tribal boundaries bleed into the territory controlled by another imperial power.

As for your point, Nitram, although New Zealand, Canada, and Australia were industrialized (to an extent) by their colonial power of Britain, America was not; it was a rural state. I believe it is more of the fact that the Americans basically were basically a british cultural castoff rather than a former dependent state with its own real prior culture.

One interesting thing I want to point out. When the Americans rebelled against Great Britain, it was an unusual kind of revolution, since it was actually the colonial governments that rebelled along with the populace. After the war was won, the former colonies basically removed the governmental superstructure of the British Empire, and replaced it with the Constitutional government. This is unlike in many of the former colonial countries, where the colonial government was nothing but a footstool, and was usually an obstacle for a revolutionary army.

[Patrick Degan]

As for your point, Nitram, although New Zealand, Canada, and Australia were industrialized (to an extent) by their colonial power of Britain, America was not; it was a rural state. I believe it is more of the fact that the Americans basically were basically a british cultural castoff rather than a former dependent state with its own real prior culture.

Not precisely. There were large rural areas to be certain and the Southern colonies were mostly agrarian, but the American colonies had established cities which were on a par with any 18th century urban centre and well-established banking and trading concerns. Plus the Mid-Atlantic and New England colonies were economically based in large measure on shipping and shipbuilding.

One interesting thing I want to point out. When the Americans rebelled against Great Britain, it was an unusual kind of revolution, since it was actually the colonial governments that rebelled along with the populace. After the war was won, the former colonies basically removed the governmental superstructure of the British Empire, and replaced it with the Constitutional government. This is unlike in many of the former colonial countries, where the colonial government was nothing but a footstool, and was usually an obstacle for a revolutionary army.

It would be more accurate to characterise the American Revolution as a war of secession. The colonies largely retained their legislative forms while overthrowing executives who remained loyal to the King. The Continental Congress was largely based on the colonial legislatures and served as the template for the original Articles of Confederation government until it was superceded by the Constitution of 1787 and the present Federal government.

[Guardsman Bass]

As for your point, Nitram, although New Zealand, Canada, and Australia were industrialized (to an extent) by their colonial power of Britain, America was not; it was a rural state. I believe it is more of the fact that the Americans basically were basically a british cultural castoff rather than a former dependent state with its own real prior culture.

Not precisely. There were large rural areas to be certain and the Southern colonies were mostly agrarian, but the American colonies had established cities which were on a par with any 18th century urban centre and well-established banking and trading concerns. Plus the Mid-Atlantic and New England colonies were economically based in large measure on shipping and shipbuilding.

True, but at the same time, even in the Northern Colonies, the majority of the populace sustained themselves by agriculture, so I consider them mainly a 'rural state.' Rome was similar; it too had major shipping concerns and cities, but most of the population and economic basis was still in agriculture.

One interesting thing I want to point out. When the Americans rebelled against Great Britain, it was an unusual kind of revolution, since it was actually the colonial governments that rebelled along with the populace. After the war was won, the former colonies basically removed the governmental superstructure of the British Empire, and replaced it with the Constitutional government. This is unlike in many of the former colonial countries, where the colonial government was nothing but a footstool, and was usually an obstacle for a revolutionary army.

It would be more accurate to characterise the American Revolution as a war of secession. The colonies largely retained their legislative forms while overthrowing executives who remained loyal to the King. The Continental Congress was largely based on the colonial legislatures and served as the template for the original Articles of Confederation government until it was superceded by the Constitution of 1787 and the present Federal government.

[/quote]

You are right. I was simply making the point that, unlike in most of the 'liberations from Imperialism,' in the American revolution the actual Colonial governments usually were not part of the opposition to the Revolution.

[HemlockGrey]

I think part of the problem is that the new imperialism didn't really implement any sort of seperate government in the areas of it colonized. In the Americas, New Zealand, and Australia, the colonials exercised a degree of autonomy and had a governmental apparatus already in place when the break came. Successful ancient empires usually left in place whatever sort of government existed in the conquered territories, just switched the flags and the final destination of the taxes.

But in Africa, once the Europeans withdrew, there was no real established government beyond the European beaucrats and their aides, so things fell apart. In the Spanish colonies, once Spain was defeated, again, there was no tradition of self-rule, because everything had been controlled by the viceroys and pennisulars. So things didn't go so well.

[Jalinth]

True, but at the same time, even in the Northern Colonies, the majority of the populace sustained themselves by agriculture, so I consider them mainly a 'rural state.' Rome was similar; it too had major shipping concerns and cities, but most of the population and economic basis was still in agriculture.

.

Do you have statistics on the US agricultural population compared to Europe? Remember, the US revolution took place pre-industrial revolution, so agriculture was still THE industry for the entire world. So being a rural state in a world where all states are rural (farming/fishing) is a "so what".

Post-WWII, agriculture can't support a modern civilization by itself, so industrialization is important. Before the industrial revolution, one large question is was your nation self-sustaining? The US had the critical mass to support itself.

As to Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, the UK gradually released its hold over a very long period of time. Canada confederated just after the US civil war, but the UK kept considerable control, and even before this local control existed in the provinces. It was a few generations before we truly became an independent country. This was almost the opposite of what took place in Africa - where local control didn't exist in most places and then suddenly they were "free". The few places that did OK had at least some pre-colony status institutions that were kept up.

[Guardsman Bass]

True, but at the same time, even in the Northern Colonies, the majority of the populace sustained themselves by agriculture, so I consider them mainly a 'rural state.' Rome was similar; it too had major shipping concerns and cities, but most of the population and economic basis was still in agriculture.

.

Do you have statistics on the US agricultural population compared to Europe? Remember, the US revolution took place pre-industrial revolution, so agriculture was still THE industry for the entire world. So being a rural state in a world where all states are rural (farming/fishing) is a "so what".

Post-WWII, agriculture can't support a modern civilization by itself, so industrialization is important. Before the industrial revolution, one large question is was your nation self-sustaining? The US had the critical mass to support itself.

What's your point? I was simply responding to the remark that the Northern Colonies were somewhat "industrialized," of sorts, at the time of the American Revolution. In fact, I pointed out earlier that one of the reasons why the African colonies were so fucked up was because the Europeans didn't give a damn about the Africans having a viable national or even self-sufficient economy.

[tharkûn]

Frankly, I've seen only one variable that improves a post-colony country's situation: The imperial power industrializing the territory. Rome was a good example of this: Even far-flung provinces benefitted from Roman roads and the like, and thus, had a leg up after the fall.

I can't think of a thing the British government industrialized in the US. Indeed the mercantile policies actively discouraged industrialization. What was to be had in the way of roads and the like, so far as I recall, was funded by private firms.

Do you have statistics on the US agricultural population compared to Europe? Remember, the US revolution took place pre-industrial revolution, so agriculture was still THE industry for the entire world. So being a rural state in a world where all states are rural (farming/fishing) is a "so what".

The US had something like 19 farmers for every 1 nonfarmer. Western Europe likely had a lower ratio because farmland wasn't as plentiful and cash cropping wasn't as prevelant.

In any event US agriculture in the early Republic was quite lucrative. The premiums for cotton, tobacco, etc. made it relatively easy to fund the government and society.

[Guardsman Bass]

Frankly, I've seen only one variable that improves a post-colony country's situation: The imperial power industrializing the territory. Rome was a good example of this: Even far-flung provinces benefitted from Roman roads and the like, and thus, had a leg up after the fall.

I can't think of a thing the British government industrialized in the US. Indeed the mercantile policies actively discouraged industrialization. What was to be had in the way of roads and the like, so far as I recall, was funded by private firms.

I believe the actual historical term was "Benign Neglect." Basically, for about a period of decades, if not a century, the British allowed the colonists to do their own thing in practice in terms of business and trade.

Do you have statistics on the US agricultural population compared to Europe? Remember, the US revolution took place pre-industrial revolution, so agriculture was still THE industry for the entire world. So being a rural state in a world where all states are rural (farming/fishing) is a "so what".

The US had something like 19 farmers for every 1 nonfarmer. Western Europe likely had a lower ratio because farmland wasn't as plentiful and cash cropping wasn't as prevelant.

In any event US agriculture in the early Republic was quite lucrative. The premiums for cotton, tobacco, etc. made it relatively easy to fund the government and society.

[/quote]

It was definitely much of the economic power of the new nation, and even once the nation did start industrializing in the Northern states, the latest iteration of the cash crop economy that had served the Southern States for nearly 250 years made them an economic powerhouse.

[lgot]

Chile also managed to come to independence with relatively little bloodshed, though that was because they had a solid, long-term dicator in power. Brazil was good until the mid-90's, I think.

Brazilian independence is quite unique because it was a fake independence. When Pedro I proclaimed the independence he did to safekeep his family's throne (Brazil status in relation of portugal was not of a simple colony, since the court moved to here due the napolean invasion) and as soon his precense was needed in europe, he gave up here and moved away. This is no wonder that brazilian independence was rather bloodless and of all latin-american countries we are the only that remained with a monarchy and portuguese's representation in the power.
But the basic thing is that independence is not the way to walk away from imperialism, since you may still chained by economic imperialism (when the portuguese left, the English took place)...It is more subtle, but to imperialism it was also better and more suited to the humanism of XIX century ("we do not domain them, we help them to progress")
Now in either way, if you mean 1890 , by that we had 78 years of official independence already, which is much more than many african countries have but the definition of quite well is much ambigous to comment any futher.

[Xon]

What's interesting about these former colonies is the same reason why they are probably First World today. In these three areas, the original colonizers- the British- didn't simply attempt to make a buck and show national pride like what was done in Africa by simply dominating the locals; they actually attempted to annihilate the locals and set up a little New Britain.

In Australia there really wasnt any serious attempt at annihliating the Aboriginal population or culture. It was a primitive stone age culture, with a rediciously sparse population.

Simple indifferances was enough to annihilate thier culture(which was highly fragmented anyway, since information didnt move between tribes very fast).