Why did the post-independence African civil wars kill more people than the anti-colonial independence struggles in the 1950s-1970s between European powers and Africans?
Take for example the death count in the Mozambican War of Independence vs. the Mozambican Civil War:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Historically, when less organized tribes had disagreements they just migrated away from each other
More organized tribes went to war
Post colonial leaders didn't want to let go of both their territory and resources to dozens of autonomous states
It's a power settling process. It took Europe from antiquity to WW2 basically to go through this process. Give it time.
Oh right, but to answer your question
Imperial europeans were unwilling to put up resistance against African independence movements
And WWII made imperialism uncool
Much easier to install puppets, kill opposition, saddle them with debts, and leave maybe 5 loyal people who can actually read
Of course, europe went through a good swathe of its power settling process without access to automatic weapons and high-powered explosives. for africa it has been, and will likely continue to be, one hell of a bloody ride.
I know in some situations like Rwanda, the violence was the result of how Europeans organized/created the country's ethnic groups.
>the violence was the result of how Europeans organized/created the country's ethnic groups.
That's largely a myth. Differences and conflicts between native tribes existed for centuries before Europeans arrived. Did Europeans play into existing hatreds to serve their own interests? Sure, but they didn't create the ethnic tensions that existed throughout the continent.
It's a complicated set of issues. As some have mentioned, it's partly different groups vying for power in the vacuum left by decolonization.
Another problem is the sheer ethnic diversity of the continent, with many countries having dozens of different groups who are now forced to cooperate in the running of the state. Add in religious divides between Islam and various Christian groups as well as feelings of alienation by minority groups and you have a recipe for disaster a la Yugoslavia.
Another problem is the presence of various warlords and dictators who took power after decolonization. As is often the case when a revolutionary faction creates a new state, violent ideologues and opportunists turn out to be bad at running a country, or at the very least doing so humanely. This was largely the result of the other issues- post-colonial power struggles, native frustration at refusal to decolonize, etc.
There are likely plenty more factors, but those are some important ones off the top of my head.
OP, check out Mamdani's book: When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and Genocide in Rwanda
Its a great case study of the violence of post-decolonization
because communists taught guerillas how to shoot people and blow things up but forgot to teach them how to stop shooting people and stop blowing things up when they didn't need to anymore
>Another problem is the sheer ethnic diversity of the continent
I thought diversity and multiculturalism was a strength though? Are you implying that different ethnic groups within diverse societies don't get along well with each other? That seems pretty racist 2bh.
no idiot, it's only racist when white people do it
Different ethnic groups are fine if they share a culture tbqh
Communism, nationalism, cronyism. Take your pick.
Africa of the 70's and 80's was similar to warlord wra China, in that a power vacuum suddenly appeared that allowed the most unscrupulous people to gain power and abuse it to their benefit. No one gave a shit about actually improving the nation and only sought to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This meant that what little infrastructure built during Colonization was left to rot. It's only just recently experienced a time of reletive peace.
Oh come on, don't be so willingly dense. A multicultural society is one that has a willingly diverse population that ideally agrees to work together for each other's benefit, while taking into consideration each other's unique needs. This obviously doesn't always work out perfectly, but people are absolutely capable of cooperating across cultural boundaries if a proper framework is in place.
The situation in Africa arose from groups with no interest in working together who were forced into that situation by colonial boundaries. In many cases, one group ends up dominating the others, creating alienation and resentment. Any group is going to want more autonomy if it's interests are not being served or in fact are being actively opposed or oppressed.
This is not the failing of a multicultural society, but in fact the result of racial tension and ethnic divide that such a society hopes to mitigate or eliminate. Drop the sarcastic pandering and try to have an actual discussion.
"diversity and multiculturalism"
Do you call one ethnic group dominating and subjugating the others "diversity?" Do you call killing others for not following your cultural practices "multiculturalism?"
This places are actively anti-multicultural, and if they tolerated other cultures and people this wouldn't happen. The mere presence of different cultures doesn't cause conflict, the intolerance of other cultures is what creates conflict, and if you wiped the agenda out of your eyes you'd understand that.
Then you know nothing. It's easy to blame the European oppressors this way, but it's a huge over simplification of things.
>A multicultural society is one that has a willingly diverse population that ideally agrees to work together for each other's benefit, while taking into consideration each other's unique needs.
Where does this actually happen? It sounds nice in theory but a pluralistic multicultural society has not yet proven to be successful in the way you described.
>Kennedys idea of stopping communism in Africa was to give training to rebel groups in colonies
>So that they could overthrow their Governments
>Which weren't commies
>Which usually had no issues with US
>While the USSR intended to do the same with other Rebels
What is it with US Presidents and their hard-on for arming insurgents who then end up just turning their training and guns on the US?
The way Kennedy went about bringing Democracy to Africa was backfired.
The naivity and sheer delusion is just utterly insane.
>A multicultural society is one that has a willingly diverse population that ideally agrees to work together for each other's benefit, while taking into consideration each other's unique needs.
And a murder free society has a population that works together not to murder each other. Unfortunately, no such society does exist, has existed, or ever will exist.
There's so many factors that it's impossible to really explain unless you narrow it down to a certain region.
A lot of it had to do with Cold War politics, however. Angola had pretty much nonstop war from 1961 into the new millennium thanks to both the Soviets and Americans trying to get a friendly regime in place, and you had the Soviets and Americans literally switch sides in a matter of weeks in the Ethiopian/Somalian conflict in the late '70s.
That's not to say that local leaders aren't blameless, though. A lot of the reason Somalia's such a shithole today is because Siad Barre squandered all that Soviet support on a massive new military and extensive funding for terrorists in Ogaden and Kenya in hopes of creating a "Greater Somalia," only to have his shit absolutely slapped in 1978 when the Soviets decided to support Ethiopia. Rather than try to improve his country, he focused efforts outwards, trying to destabilize his neighbors. Ultimately, that laid the groundwork for the terrorist groups that ended up taking hold after the Barre regime fell, and we're still dealing with the consequences of the sponsorship of terrorism in neighboring countries - particularly in Kenya.
Communist Chinese vs. Soviet proxy wars in Africa killed more people than US-backed proxy wars in Africa.
Would Greater Somalia even have mattered, economically or even politically speaking?
Probably not. Ogaden's a pretty desolate wasteland with the only people living there being Somali tribesmen. They have discovered natural gas under the region, but the rebels in Ogaden seem to not want any exploitation of resources.
Really it seems like it was just a nationalistic cause to motivate the people because pushing for that would be easier than actually trying to fix the country.
I certainly don't think the ideal form has ever been achieved. Places like Canada etc certainly have diverse populations in close proximity in urban centers, but it's not perfect.
I wasn't trying to claim that a successful, purely multicultural society exists. I was simply countering the claim that the failure of African nations to achieve national unity is representative of multiculturalism as a whole. They aren't societies built on tolerance or a desire to work together, but rather the active rejection of those ideals, so trying to use that as an argument against diverse societies is intellectually dishonest.
The Tutsi did not exist before Europeans came along.