I’ve heard this statement and it is completely false (I did not take issue with the rest of your post). Colonialism actually introduced a lot of technology into Africa (things such as the wheel were not widely used).

The most heavily colonialised countries in Africa are the best. A good example is Botswana. They did not return to their pre-tribal ways but basically adapted the British system. South Africa is also heavily “colonialised” and it is the only industrial country.

Countries such as Lesotho and Swaziland had minimal colonial influences and still have much of their traditional leadership (uninterrupted). Those two countries are also the biggest shitholes in Africa.

The traditional African governance was a strong-man (chief) with absolute power. It was basically an absolute monarch who is only removed by someone more powerful. That is why Africans in rural areas usually like a strong-man – anyone else is seen as a weak leader. A leader who is compassionate is seen as weak.

I personally would content that a lot of African countries returned to their pre-colonial government structure.

You have edited your post now. The reason I take issue with your post is because of the “African Renaissance” idea. This idea/ideology (which was mostly promoted by Thabo Mbeki) states that Africa was a wondrous well developed place full of technology, culture, art, industry and peace (it goes hand in hand with strong historic revisionism). The idea was that colonialism destroyed Africa and Africa should just recover from colonialism.

The problem with this is that it does not address the current core issues of African problems. It also lays the blame for all problems on colonialisation – instead of corrupt African governments and systematic problems. It basically absolves current African governments from all responsibility.

But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.

Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal).

At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern.

The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power.

The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though.

> But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.

And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.

In Europe, the king is a man who tells people what to do, and his decisions are completely separated from the people. In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. His very role depends on him being the voice of the people - it is impossible for a chief to not do this, because he does not have an army to force the people to follow what he wants. His army are the very people he leads.

Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Africa is mostly compared of Niger-Congo speaking people, and most of them use exactly the same system I describe here. The far South Africans, which you are basing your argument on, are not representative, just as Ethiopians or Somalis would not be representative.

I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The structure of society does not allow this.

My experience is admittedly limited to Southern African countries (SADEC countries including Zambia and Angola). I chose the South African examples since they are the best documented.

But I see no reason to believe that there would be a significant difference in other African countries.

> Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders.

Not really – I have not seen any evidence of this. Most of the leaders are hereditary or semi-hereditary (when the line is broken by the brother or family member of the chief).

As another example, take the Bamagwato. Ian Khama is the chief of the Bamagwato (in Botswana). He is the great-great grandson of Khama III (who is again had his chieftanship descend from his father). Ian Khama is the president of Botswana (this is not to detract from Botswana’s good governance and its incorporation of Western values).

> He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe).

Unfortunately many similar things happen. A good example is the Reed Dance in Swaziland. King Mswati selects brides for himself from people (he recently selected one that was under the age of consent). The whole purpose of the Chief is self-serving.

> In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads.

You live in a dream world. In the 1800’s, Shaka killed thousands of his own people because his mother died (and wanted people to share his pain). He also subjected them to famine.

> Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns.

Not completely. Cattle are grazed communally and most work is performed communally. Ubuntu (most Bantu languages have a similar word) literally means “shared grazing land”. This actually also makes sense (specialisation of labour and all that).

> I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre.

The Shaka example I showed you is a good example where he killed off and starved his own people.

I personally believe that you may have a little too romantic view of Africa (while I concede that I may suffer from the opposite).

It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.

All African languages stem from the same group (the Bantu language group).

> an entirely different people.

Again, this is doubtful. I have given you examples of the whole Southern Africa – you have given none to support your argument. Your argument looks more like a deeply held and unjustified personal believe.

The statements you make are clearly devoid of any semblance of truth.

> It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.

We were talking about Africa and my examples are from, uhm… Africa.

Africans are completely different. An ethiopian looks very different from a South African, who looks different from a Hausa. What type of absurd extrapolation are you making when you claim your limited experience is representative of the entirerity of the continent?

What you are doing here is picking examples that can support your view of Africa as a continent of savage chiefs that kill people (and then boil them in large metal pots likely).

I don't want to continue this. It's making me angry, and people like you are not worth my being angry about.

You went from the west coast to the east while skipping Angola, Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique.

> There is very few instances of a hereditary "president" system in most of Africa.

There is actually quite a lot. The word Ghana even means “king”. I have given you two examples of kingships with a history of over 200 years from two different countries. Traditional leadership however do not resemble a president (since most traditional organisations were small).

> You pick a single example and then say "that is how Africa is".

You pick a few unsupported examples based on your belief. You seem to reject (without motivation) the countries I mentioned (South Africa, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, etc…). In all of these countries several systems of traditional leadership that is hereditary, dictorial and fairly small is found (in South Africa’s case, more than 9).

> Africans are completely different.

This is a retarded statement. I bet I have met more Africans and had more interaction with Africans from many countries a month than you had in your entire life. Have you gone to Kenya for a holiday and turned into an expert?

> What type of absurd extrapolation are you making when you claim your limited experience is representative of the entirerity of the continent?

You claim your view covers the entire continent. I gave you several examples which clearly falsify your theory. There is a reason why African countries tend to have the same government structure and level of development. The simple reason is that they were at the same stage of development and there is cross-pollination of ideas and people moving.

Do you think that it was a coincidence that the whole of Europe had the same type of government structure for several centuries?

> that can support your view of Africa as a continent of savage chiefs that kill people (and then boil them in large metal pots likely).

I do not think this at all. What you doing is the strawman argument – you make a easy strawman and then knock it down.

The reason (as previously stated) why the governmental structures is early similar is because of the same level of development (and similar structures existed in Europe at some stage). I personally think that your view is more based on your political view than mine.

> It's making me angry, and people like you are not worth my being angry about.

Here you descent into personal insults. This is just nasty. Just because your theory about African traditional leadership does not fit with the facts, doesn’t give you a reason to get angry. Don’t shoot the messenger.