"All good people agree that British and French colonialism are just about completely to blame for any social dysfunction to found in their former colonies and that the UK and France must pay for their past crimes.”
Actually historical determinist explanations like this really aren’t that good at all. I say this as someone who really does embrace history and historical explanations. But there was no primeval innocence. There have always been circumstances where groups have dominated and exploited other groups. In most cases where national boundaries have been drawn arbitrarily and discipline and control imposed in the same manner, the reduction of tribalistic hostilitites can be expected. Saddam Hussein performed that role of putting the lid on antagonisms between the Sunni and the Shia, until America intervened and the basic control mechanism was removed. You can’t say that imposition of power from above was the problem. Sunni and Shia would not have got along like pygmies in a forest in the absence of any imposed control. (Obviously not, as recent history itself tells us.)
In the same way, you cannot say that British colonialism was wholly to blame for reigniting the hostilities between the Shona and Ndebele in Zimbabwe. The removal of colonial control was equally to blame for Gukurahundi.
No comments:
Post a Comment