Is Africa drifting into a state of more and more military takeovers?

[Tigerace117]

You make no sense at all.

It was the colonial nations that ended slavery....much against the will of African slave traders.

No, it was abolitionists in the home countries who forced the colonists to end slavery....much to the colonists’ anger and hatred.

I’m not surprised someone as historically ignorant as you are is struggling to wrap your head around that fact though.

 

[joluoto]

You make no sense at all.

It was the colonial nations that ended slavery....much against the will of African slave traders.

Yes but also against the will of the white settlers (and slavery was still a thing in Africa in the early 1900s, despite it having been "abolished". When I did my Masters I read through the findings of the League of Nations Temporary Slave Commission that lead to the 1926 Slavery Convention (which is still a binding document for the signatories to this day), and the League's Advisory Committee of Experts on Slavery that followed up on the slavery convention and realized things were moving really slowly forward (and in some places not at all). In Mauretania for example the French abolished slavery in 1905, which resulted in nothing actually happening, independent Mauretania abolished slavery in 1981, which also resulted in nothing, and made a law that allowed the governmet to prosecute slave holders as late as 2007, and slavery despite having been abolished more than 100 years ago is still around, and there is a continuity which just shows how ineffective both colonial and the independent government have been. And reading through the documents from the League commissions it became clear that often a colonial government just declared slavery being over and then hoped it would end itself, which sometimes happened but often not. Slavery in many instances slowly ended in the mid 1900s, but as the Mauretanian example shows it stayed around in some places.

And then we have what's not officially slavery but Forced Labor, as in colonial governments forcefully drafting colonial subjects to work, usually in harsh conditions. During the 1920s the League of Nations also tried to tackle this, with very little enthusiasm from the colonial powers, that dominated the League. Despite that ILO was able to get the colonial powers to signe the Forced Labor Convention of 1930. That convention though had several loopholes, and when WW2 broke out the colonial powers could use the State of Emergency clauses to draft workers and force them to work to provide raw materials for the war industry. Even before the war broke out France found a way around it by drafting natives to the army and forming labor batallions that basically did the same work. In fact there were so many ways to dance around the 1930 convention that forced labor basically kept being a thing in most colonies despite being outlawed. Only the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention of 1957 closed the loopholes, but by then the colonial empires were crumbling and colonial powers leaving the continent anyways.

​

​

 

[Ginza]

Yes but also against the will of the white settlers

I have no doubt that some white settlers were against the abolition of slavery. The obvious examples being the Afrikaners and Americans in the Confederate states.

I have no doubt that blacks who enslaved other blacks were also against the abolition of slavery, as were some black slave owners.

But the reality is that it was almost entirely abolished by Europeans.

They deserve credit for this. It was a practice that had existed for thousands of years.

Why only recognise history that discredits whites?

There was also a great deal of benefits to Africa and other colonised nations.

I am a big admirer of Lee Kuan Yew the former leader of one of my favourite places, Singapore, who said :

"before the British arrived, there was no organised human society in Singapore, unless a fishing village can be called a society”.