What would German Tanzania have been like?

[Kibona]

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.

We are not saying the Germans had good intention. But we are just comparing the facts. If there are some people who are justifying our poor developmental performance from our historical background, then I don't see the reason why should we not state fact that Germans had invested more and at a good pace than British. And when we admit that, we do not intend to devalue the independence we attained. I know history is written by the winners, thats why most of our history will never admit that kind of reality even though there are clear evidences of a Germany investment while no evidence to British investment in Tanganyika.

 

[Askari Kanzu]

...Germany investment while no evidence to British investment in Tanganyika.

Are you serious, that you are still romanticizing the colonial past?

 

[KVM]

Are you serious, that you are still romanticizing the colonial past?

But it is a fact that the British investment in Tanganyika, and in fact in most of its colonies serve for Kenya and Zimbabwe in Africa was very minimal. They extract a lot from Tanganyika but invested next to nothing. Why is it bad to state that fact?

 

[Askari Kanzu]

But it is a fact that the British investment in Tanganyika, and in fact in most of its colonies serve for Kenya and Zimbabwe in Africa was very minimal. They extract a lot from Tanganyika but invested next to nothing. Why is it bad to state that fact?

This is a weird kind of thinking. I thought we no longer have people who still think like "natives".

 

[KVM]

This is a weird kind of thinking. I thought we no longer have people who still think like "natives".

What is "nativeness" about that?

 

[Askari Kanzu]

What is "nativeness" about that?

The "nativeness" lies in the appreciation of the colonial master's "investment" (as you put it).

 

[KVM]

The "nativeness" lies in the appreciation of the colonial master's "investment" (as you put it).

In my posting I did not indicate anywhere that I appreciating the colonial master's investments in their colonies. Did I?

 

[Askari Kanzu]

In my posting I did not indicate anywhere that I appreciating the colonial master's investments in their colonies. Did I?

It seems like you appreciate more the "investments" done by the Germans than the Brits. At least that is how I perceived your posts.

 

[KVM]

It seems like you appreciate more the "investments" done by the Germans than the Brits. At least that is how I perceived your posts.

Did I appreciate them? No. How? Did I invent them? No. Did I state the fact? Yes. Is that what you call "nativeness"?

 

[Askari Kanzu]

Did I appreciate them? No. How? Did I invent them? No. Did I state the fact? Yes. Is that what you call "nativeness"?

But seriously, haven't you applauded the so called Germany's investments in Tanganyika as opposed to the Brit's in your posts?

 

[KVM]

But seriously, haven't you applauded the so called Germany's investments in Tanganyika as opposed to the Brit's in your posts?

How did I applaud? May be I condemned the attitude of the British towards their colonies. Were they not supposed to do better?

 

[Askari Kanzu]

How did I applaud? May be I condemned the attitude of the British towards their colonies. Were they not supposed to do better?

To do better? Better to whom, the colonized? Are you serious?

 

[KVM]

To do better? Better to whom, the colonized? Are you serious?

That is what I will call a parochial mindset. Even in war the conqueror is not supposed to do certain things to the vanquished.

 

[Askari Kanzu]

That is what I will call a parochial mindset. Even in war the conqueror is not supposed to do certain things to the vanquished.

Your last sentence is both contradictory and out of context. You also need to revise your use of the term "parochial", imho.

 

[KVM]

I am sorry if you feel insulted. But the use of the term parochial in this case was trying to capture the way you tend to limit the discussion about colonialism. [FONT=arial, sans-serif]Certainly, colonialism was abominable. We can talk about all the bad things that the colonialists did to the colonised. In Tanganyika they killed some Africans and their leaders, used forced labour in their plantations, etc. But we can also talk about the schools, roads and railways that they built or did not build.

There are those who will want everyone to talk about the evil of colonialism according to their own terms only. We should not talk about the Germans building Tanga School and Central Railway. Because these were built by colonialists they are bad. Yet, when countries are granted independence they complain about the lack of infrastructure which left behind by the colonisers.[/FONT]

 

[Askari Kanzu]

I am sorry if you feel insulted...

Insulted? To the contrary. It seems like you prefer to be subjective. That is your own choice. Somehow it is strange that you are still using English as your language of expression. Isn't that one of the legacies of British colonial rule, of which you should also be "thankful"; just like for the German "investments"?

 

[KVM]

Insulted? To the contrary. It seems like you prefer to be subjective. That is your own choice. Somehow it is strange that you are still using English as your language of expression. Isn't that one of the legacies of British colonial rule of which you should also be "thankful"; just like the German "investments"?

You could change one of the sentences to read as follows: "Somehow it is strange that we are still using English as our language of expression".

Anyway, I used English to respond to a message which was written in English.

The colonised cannot avoid using some elements of their master's language. The British still use Latin and Roman knowledge of many things. Our own Kiswahili is a mixture of native languages and languages of our past masters - Arabs, Portuguese, Germans, and the British.

 

[Askari Kanzu]

You could change one of the sentences to read as follows: "Somehow it is strange that we are still using English as your language of expression".

Anyway, I used English to respond to a message which was written in English.

The colonised cannot avoid using some elements of their master's language. The British still use Latin and Roman knowledge of many things. Our own Kiswahili is mixture of native languages and languages of our past masters - Arabs, Portuguese, Germans, and the British.

I advise you to get yourself a copy of Paul Freire's book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". It might help to alleviate your colonial stupor.

 

[KVM]

Insulted? To the contrary. It seems like you prefer to be subjective. That is your own choice. Somehow it is strange that you are still using English as your language of expression. Isn't that one of the legacies of British colonial rule, of which you should also be "thankful"; just like for the German "investments"?

To a certain extent we are all subjective. However, if I say that the British invested more in Southern Rhodesia than in Northern Rhodesia will I still be subjective? You only need to ask me to avail the statistics to prove my point.

 

[Askari Kanzu]

By subjective I meant this:

...the way you tend to limit the discussion about colonialism...