Feedback 24-28 (Pros and Cons of Imperialism)

Positives

• Improved communications
• Better transportation
  
• The general uplifting from the dark ages into the modern age of industry and wealth
• Continental Language
• Development of resources
• Global Trade
• Exploration of undeveloped areas
• Attempt to civilize and proselytize Africans
• Gave medicine and health care for free
• David Livingstone
  

Negatives

• Complete destruction of African Culture
• Exploitation of resources
• Development of Slavery
• Draining of resources
• Creation of states that are suicidal
• Mass slaughter
• Incited genocide
• Creation of the Apartheid
  
• They came, used Africa, and left, leaving almost no knowledge behind
• Creation of "spheres of Influence"
• King Leopold
• Death by foreign diseases
  

Southern Africa Current Event (3)

Annan, Carter and Machel's Zimbabwe visit blocked

The condition of Zimbabwe has continued to collapse. The political infighting has increased, along with a near total collapse of utilities and amenities. This has prompted a survey visit from three representatives of the U.N to asses the humanitarian crisis. However, Zimbabwe has banned and blocked the three people and stopped their visit. The three people, known as experienced politicians are former President Jimmy Carter, former U.N secretary General Kofi Annan, and the wife of Nelson Mandela, Graca Machel. The reason for this injustice was printed in a government owned paper, The Herald. "The visit has been deemed a partisan mission by a group of people with partisan interests." This small snippet of text pretty much sums up the government's argument, and those of the Zimbabwean politicians concerning the U.N. So by banning the U.N visit, a dying nation has thrown down the gauntlet. What is to come in the next few days will be closely watched.

I believe this is news for few reasons. The first and most prominent reason is "unexpectedness." No one at all expected these respected people to be banned from a country. The story is also relevant, and it is about a conflict that has been raging for a while now between the political icons. It is also "bad news" for the people of Zimbabwe. 

Government and Economy of Southern Africa.

The development of a true African Government began shortly after the Apartheid was abolished. This happened primarily because of economic sanctions against Africa, and the general movement of people beginning to realize how unfair the Apartheid really was. One of these people was Nelson Mandela, a young activist who was imprisoned for protest. This is the same man who would eventually shape South African politics, win a Nobel Peace Prize, and become a hero, after twenty-six years of imprisonment. 

As to the countries themselves, alot of them were incredibly dependent of the Afrikaans and Europeans for support. This was because it was the trade the Europeans brought that created the Southern African economy. The only nation that stayed strong after the Apartheid ended was South Africa. It had a vast amount of resources, a stable government, and the initiative to lead development in Southern Africa. Meanwhile, small kingdom countries like Lesotho and Swaziland became dependent on South Africa , supplying mineral resources, food crops, and labor for the developing economy. Other countries like Namibia, the Comoros, and Madagascar are rich in resources, but have an unstable government, resulting in a failing economy. One success story is Botswana, which managed to establish a stable government and pull through the chaos that came after the Apartheid. Overall, Southern Africa has many problems facing it in the near future. It's a conflict loaded with resources people have been attempting to control for many generations. It is going to be difficult, but with the current rate of development, Southern Africa can pull through the problems to a better and brighter future. 

Feedback November 10-14

The main visual elements of this cartoon are the black Africa, and the giant footprint cutting across most of the country. I believe that this cartoon is about the colonization and subsequent draining of resources that occured in Africa. Also about how the spirits, the country, the people, and the culture of Africa was crushed by a "White" opressive foot. Therefore I'd have to say that the cartoonist dislikes the colonization of Africa. My support comes from the contrast between black and white, also from how the foot has left a desert-like mark, indicating that the people were crushed.  The image kind of gives of the feeling of Africa being used up. Kind off like a doormat that everyone crushes and wipes their feet on. I guess this is actually an effectively used propaganda technique. If I could do one thing better, I would add a caption. It would probably be confusing to other people who aren't studying imperial and colonialism. 

History and Culture of Southern Africa

As long as 2000 years ago, the African people were hunter gatherers who were divided into many ethnic groups. These people, called Khoisan, were intruded upon by the Bantu people migrating from West and Central Africa. This mix combined cultures, something that would happen more with the European invasion of Africa. One race, the Shanu, constructed a magnificent stone walled city called New Zimbabwe. As the population grew, Great Zimbabwe became a trading center and capitol of known South Africa. It’s trade routes were said to encompass the Indian Ocean trade network. In fact, it was the wealth obtained through trade that made the Europeans invade Africa. Countries like Germany, Netherlands and the French created small colonies, and yet again the cultures were intermingled. This resulted in a new language called Afrikaans which influenced language development. Violent countries like the British established claim and made war over land owned by tribes, one of which were the Zulu. By the 1900’s, the Afrikaners, descendants of Western colonists, controlled the government. They established racist policies called apartheid which divided people into four racial subgroups. These groups were allocated better or worse resources depending on race. However, the Africans struggling to throw off racism caused by the Europeans achieved freedom in 1980. They put back together their culture, which combined Christianity, many languages created by Afrikaneers, and holidays and festivals from many diffrent ethnicities.

The Scramble for Africa

While other countries fought it out for territory of questionable value, we attempted to claim territory wanted by other countries. Using this territory, we gained the upper hand in peaceful negotiations over land that we wanted. Also, using this bargaining chip, we would form alliances, like our deal to take over Botswana with Portugal. Our deals were often complicated and sometimes backfired, like us gaining only three squares in South Africa. These constant negotiations prevented other countries from attempting to take our land, and also let us slowly claim more territory to bargain with. When we first laid out our plan, we were looking for the resources mentioned in the note in African Countries. In particular, zinc, iron and copper. We also checked if other countries wanted that area, and if so, was there a way we could work together to get the best out of the territory instead of fighting. We also prioritized our claims of land, so valuable countries were captured first. 

I think that France won the Scramble for Africa. They were looking for iron, diamonds, zinc and petroleum, and managed to secure massive amounts of all but petroleum. The also used an effective strategy of taking over South Africa and moving upwards. They claimed a lot of coastline, which was valuable land, and Madagascar, an island with a gigantic amount of disposable resources. I think that Great Britain did the worst out of all the countries. It started out promising, but did not manage to secure any of it's resources. Also, the third objective to control the Suez Canal was thwarted, and the territory divided. On top of all that, they also didn't manage to subdue the french. 

South Africa Current Event (2)

iafrica.com | news | sa news SA's low life expectancy

This link links to a news article regarding the life expectancy of Africans on iAfrica.com, an african news source. 

The basic story in the article is the declining life expectancy of the African people in Africa. It has dropped so low, that its lower then the expectancy of war-ravaged Iraq. The world average life expectancy is men-65 years and women-70. However, in Africa it's fallen to men-52 and women-54. It gets even worse. In South Africa, it has lost another three points leaving at men-49 and women-50. This information was gathered by the United Nations Population Fund on Tuesday. Also in the report was information stating that The Hiv Infection rate is fourteen percent in males, and twenty one percent among women. On top of that, the birth ratio is wildly out of check, resulting in twenty three babies born for a thousand teenage girls. Overall, Southern Africa has to get it's death and birth rates in check if it wants to survive as a developing/developed country. 

This article can be considered news for a few reasons. Firstly is Impact, because this article deals with lives of South Africans, and how it's going to affect their lifestyle. Also Magnitude, because it doesn't deal with just one South African, it deals with ALL South Africans. Third is Timeliness, because the report dealing with this issue was released only two days ago. It also refers to something negative, in this case, the horrible life expectancy of South Africans, which is a bit unexpected.