> When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa".
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).
I think it is pointless to argue with you, as you are speaking of an entirely different culture with an entirely different language group and an entirely different people.
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.
The entire west african coast is made up of people who farm plots of land. The entire village system across the congo, through kenya, to sierra leone is made up of a chief representative system. There is very few instances of a hereditary "president" system in most of Africa. You pick a single example and then say "that is how Africa is". To be frank, it's just stupid.
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.
> The entire village system across the congo, through kenya, to sierra leone
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.
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).