Is that what you long for. Isn't that skewed thinking?.........Like other colonial masters, Germany would have developed the country to some degree, though ultimately for their own interests and not those of the natives.........
Just to cement your points; German East Africa was by the end of 1913 the most developed country in Tropical Africa and the most educated in sub sahara. The Germans had invested more in Tanganyika than any other Colonial power in Africa.Am sure Tanzania under Germany would have been the super power in East, Central and Southern Africa. Actually Germans invested alot in Tanzania and most of their investment denotes permenence means they wanted Tanganyika for long term purpose.
Look at most infrastructure left by Germans are visible, live and in use up to date.
If you look places like Tanga you can be surprised, plantations, strong buildings, railway, factories and the likes without forgeting schools and city planning.
In early 2000 i happened to go to ujiji kigoma, my goodness i was amazed by german road, it is a unique tarmac lasted for over 60 years.
No wonder Germany is the strongest economy in Europe despite all ups and downs in Ww1&2.
Conclusively i say Tanzania would be better and far with germans than British. Tanzania would imitate aggressiveness of Germans, transfer technology, acquire production development as long as Germans noted and discovered alot of precious resources, they would do everything to safeguard their interest in Tanzania. Remember they wanted to recapture Tanganyika in ww2 but failed, they tried to return immediate after independence but was not successful.
Are you serious? Can you prove this?Just to cement your points; German East Africa was by the end of 1913 the most developed country in Tropical Africa and the most educated in sub sahara. The Germans had invested more in Tanganyika than any other Colonial power in Africa.
Is this what you call the most developed country in Tropical Africa; or rather, is this what you aspire to live under?Just to cement your points; German East Africa was by the end of 1913 the most developed country in Tropical Africa and the most educated in sub sahara. The Germans had invested more in Tanganyika than any other Colonial power in Africa.
Even the French and the British did that, not just the Germans. Colonial governments and their territories had a master-slave relationship the world over.Is this what you call the most developed country in Tropical Africa; or rather, is this what you aspire to live under?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
German Officials' Personal Transport in East Africa (c. 1905) Germany controlled several territories in Africa and the Pacific, even though it entered the race for colonies relatively late. Lured by the prospect of adventure and economic opportunity, more than 70,000 Germans sought to establish a life outside Germany, often chasing indigenous peoples off their lands or hiring them as servants for menial work. This photograph offers a glimpse into the colonial lifestyle of a German official, whose family is being transported in a litter carried by four Africans from the German East Africa colony (modern-day Tanzania).
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Source:
My point here is not whether the Brits and the French were better or worse than the Germans. It is a fallacy to believe that the colonialists (all of them) had the intention of "developing" the countries that they were colonizing. To claim that we would have been better off under the Germans or whosoever portrays a lack of understanding of the whole issue of colonialism.Even the French and the British did that, not just the Germans. Colonial governments and their territories had a master-slave relationship the world over.
So i took the liberty to look into Kibona claims, and i found there was some truth to it. Check this out;...
My point here is not whether the Brits and the French were better or worse than the Germans. It is a fallacy to believe that the colonialists (all of them) had the intention of "developing" the countries that they were colonizing. To claim that we would have been better off under the Germans or whosoever portrays a lack of understanding of the whole issue of colonialism.
Well, it is that aim that matters most and is the bone of contention here.I do not think it is completely out of order to compare the colonialists. All colonialists are not the same although they have the same aim.
Well, it is that aim that matters most and is the bone of contention here.
Who is laying such a claim here? Why are you trying to be apologetic to colonialists?Tanganyika is not the first country in the world to suffer under colonialism...
Who is laying such a claim here? Why are you trying to be apologetic to colonialists?
But who is trying to silence the discussion? You don't expect everyone to have the same views as yours; or do you?I am not trying to be apologetic to colonialists. What I am opposed to is trying to silence any discussion about the bright side of colonialism because colonialism is bad...
But who is trying to silence the discussion? You don't expect everyone to have the same views as yours; or do you?
OK, but having been born in colonial times and experienced colonialism at a close range I do get a feeling of nervous unease when I hear people extoll the "positive" sides of colonialism. That's all.I don't expect everyone to have the same views as mine. Certainly I have not indicated so anywhere in my postings.
I don't think that is the issue here. No one in his sane mind can believe that this is possible. History can not be negated!...There are those who believe that the colonialists brought nothing positive and we do not have anything to learn from them hence we should throw away everything...