The looting of a continent
Oct. 20th, 2021 09:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bloodygranuaileOne of my entirely-too-many reading groups has been reading Walter Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa in 30-page chunks since July. I am about a day behind on actually finishing it for reasons of my own failure to calendar correctly. Other than missing the final session by not having done the reading, I generally found that this was a very good book to read by breaking it up into small bits and discussing them at great length, because, while the book is fairly old--first published in 1972--it’s still extremely relevant, and there’s a lot to talk about both in terms of what has changed since the book was published and, sadly, what has not.
I will only give a few high-level thoughts because I am largely talked out about the particulars. First of all, it is easy to see why this book became a classic; it is extremely informative, unapologetic about where it stands politically, and written in a very straightforward, but not simplified, style. It presumes the reader is more or less Marxist-aligned but does not require an especially deep familiarity with the specifics of Marxist theory, as it defines terms and provides footnotes and such when warranted. Somewhat more challenging to a modern baby leftist reader might be the fact that a whole lot of place-names in Africa have changed since the book was written and I cannot always remember where Rhodesia was although I certainly support the name change (it’s Zimbabwe). The book provides a ton of historical evidence to back up its main thesis--that Africa doesn’t just happen to be less developed, it was deliberately underdeveloped, that’s what colonialism is--and systematically rebuts common pro-colonial (or wishy-washy liberal colonial-apologetic) arguments regarding the slave trade, education, technological development, foreign investment and aid, and a host of other topics. The arguments are masterfully made, backed up with fascinating history, cold hard numbers, a strong sense of moral clarity, and a solid materialist Marxist analysis. A dry sense of humor sneaks in on occasion, as well.
Some of the things Rodney talks about track with what I learned in, for example, my Problems fo Globalization class my freshman year, or even the in hindsight rather unusual Africa unit we did in eight grade social studies class (highlights included a roleplay of being four different tribal nations with different interests that had to figure out how to govern a newly independent country, which perhaps predictably devolved rapidly into bikeshedding, and a lecture on the transatlantic slave trade that we all had to listen to while packed in tightly under our desks while the teacher walked on the tops of the desks and called us wusses if we complained). Other parts really challenged some of the narratives I’d been taught in what I’d figured were pretty progressive classes, such as that the infighting between different ethnic groups within colonial territories weren’t a result of those maps being drawn without regard for old territorial boundaries; rather, divisions were stoked deliberately.
The book covers a lot of ground in 350 pages, discussing pre-colonial Africa, the development of the slave trade, the effects of the slave trade, the transition from the slave trade to other forms of extractive colonialist economies (i.e. mining and monoculture), colonial administration, and the way all these things shaped the post-World War independent movements. It wastes no space, and is therefore able to do all this without skimping on interesting historical details. Some of it definitely comes off as a little ‘70s (I winced every time he mentioned scientific agriculture; that’s what I get for reading this immediately after Seeing Like a State) but it’s still a rewarding read.
I will only give a few high-level thoughts because I am largely talked out about the particulars. First of all, it is easy to see why this book became a classic; it is extremely informative, unapologetic about where it stands politically, and written in a very straightforward, but not simplified, style. It presumes the reader is more or less Marxist-aligned but does not require an especially deep familiarity with the specifics of Marxist theory, as it defines terms and provides footnotes and such when warranted. Somewhat more challenging to a modern baby leftist reader might be the fact that a whole lot of place-names in Africa have changed since the book was written and I cannot always remember where Rhodesia was although I certainly support the name change (it’s Zimbabwe). The book provides a ton of historical evidence to back up its main thesis--that Africa doesn’t just happen to be less developed, it was deliberately underdeveloped, that’s what colonialism is--and systematically rebuts common pro-colonial (or wishy-washy liberal colonial-apologetic) arguments regarding the slave trade, education, technological development, foreign investment and aid, and a host of other topics. The arguments are masterfully made, backed up with fascinating history, cold hard numbers, a strong sense of moral clarity, and a solid materialist Marxist analysis. A dry sense of humor sneaks in on occasion, as well.
Some of the things Rodney talks about track with what I learned in, for example, my Problems fo Globalization class my freshman year, or even the in hindsight rather unusual Africa unit we did in eight grade social studies class (highlights included a roleplay of being four different tribal nations with different interests that had to figure out how to govern a newly independent country, which perhaps predictably devolved rapidly into bikeshedding, and a lecture on the transatlantic slave trade that we all had to listen to while packed in tightly under our desks while the teacher walked on the tops of the desks and called us wusses if we complained). Other parts really challenged some of the narratives I’d been taught in what I’d figured were pretty progressive classes, such as that the infighting between different ethnic groups within colonial territories weren’t a result of those maps being drawn without regard for old territorial boundaries; rather, divisions were stoked deliberately.
The book covers a lot of ground in 350 pages, discussing pre-colonial Africa, the development of the slave trade, the effects of the slave trade, the transition from the slave trade to other forms of extractive colonialist economies (i.e. mining and monoculture), colonial administration, and the way all these things shaped the post-World War independent movements. It wastes no space, and is therefore able to do all this without skimping on interesting historical details. Some of it definitely comes off as a little ‘70s (I winced every time he mentioned scientific agriculture; that’s what I get for reading this immediately after Seeing Like a State) but it’s still a rewarding read.