Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I typed "as if" in response to your remarks. I also modelled with examples the scope of specificity that I hoped you would add in your reply to furnish stereotypical claims about "North Africa." I seek information from you that recognizes variances in economic and political conditions among the nation-states said to comprise that region.

Similarly, I seek some specificity in remarks that characterize division of the continent as "North Africa" and "Black Africa." While I am well aware of the convention in Anglo-European Literature to segregate historical "Arab" settlements from others, south of the Sahel, the significance of this language of preference among economic partners for European "integration" is not immediately clear to me, considering historical, economic relations between "black" nations of "West Africa" and sub-Saharan Africa and imperial Europe up to and after wars of independence.

So, no. I do not refer to the Economic Community of West African States or to the West African Economic and Monetary Union. My article selection is not arbitrary; it offers a context to evaluate the extent of cultural and economic privileges enjoyed by "protectorates" today which may distinguish nominees.

By refering to a particular group of nation-states that complement the arbitrary division of the continent into "North Africa" and "Black Africa," I seek to understand better your criteria --being stereotypically representative of antiracist France, as it must be-- for EU election of trade partners in Africa to EU "integration."

Please do not hesitate to say if proximity and port facilities of partners to EU borders are the crucial criteria, after all.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 02:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cat:
proximity and port facilities of partners to EU borders are the crucial criteria

That, and centuries of shared history, economy and culture. Add to that population mingling... Whereas the colonisation of Sub-Saharan Africa lasted less than a century.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 03:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
less than half a century? Really?

Darn. I've quoted B. Davidson more than once. My mistake. I should make myself familiar with Article 4 approved texts.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 04:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't you read? I wrote less than a century. I was referring to the French (and British) colonisation that started in the second half of the XIXth century. Which means that, for inland countries, colonisation began around 1870-80 and ended in 1958.

By the way, the law created a public uproar and was finally repealed

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 06:01:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah! You are correct. You typed "less than a century." And the "the positive role of the French presence abroad, especially in North Africa" has been roundly disputed since the repeal of the law of official history.

Pardon me. I cannot read.

And I am a mediocre typist.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... theoretical atmosphere there ... I hung around with African students in both Knoxville, TN and Newcastle, NSW, and in a smaller African community, students from all over sub-Saharan Africa hang out together, party together, braid hair together, do favors for each other ... you can go ahead and claim it was externally imposed, but being amongst it, it looked awfully self-organizing.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 05:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pardon. What am I claiming is "externally imposed"?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 09:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[quote] While I am well aware of the convention in Anglo-European Literature to segregate historical "Arab" settlements from others, south of the Sahel, the significance of this language of preference among economic partners for European "integration" is not immediately clear to me, considering historical, economic relations between "black" nations of "West Africa" and sub-Saharan Africa and imperial Europe up to and after wars of independence. [/quote]

You are saying that the normally closer relationships between, say, Ghanaians and Mozambicans than between Ghanaians and North Africans is to be understood primarily in terms of an imposed convention from Anglo-European literature

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah. That is an interesting interpretation, though I didn't intend to characterize "normally closer relationships" between "black" nations at any point in history.

More to my point is the contrast of races in European literature between all "black" societies and those of Arabic speakers anywhere -- but particularly in the "Dark Continent" --who have been identified with the "Caucasian" race in the rise of indo-european civilizations. And by rise, I do not mean perfunctory admiration for the material culture of the "Golden Aga of Islam," but the establishment of arcane academic disciplines to specify the taxonomy of in racial superiority flowing by conquests --first order colonization-- northward from the Upper Nile.

That is to dismiss depradations upon societies that do not flatter "universal" Indo-European mythos.

Systematic destruction of the Ottoman empire throughout Mediterranean Europe (e.g. "classical" Greece) and Africa (e.g. all of "North Africa") describes concisely the impetus of "shared history" culminating in glorified expeditions to Egypt and Algeria.

The introduction to The Protestant Ethic, for exmple, offers a conventional smorgasboard, as it were, of Occidental genius "refined" by international trade and philosophical appropriation up to the day it was published.

Edward Said, of course, takes on in great detail the purposes of Orientalism in literature (and propaganda) of the 19th century to the present.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 10:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cat:
Systematic destruction of the Ottoman empire throughout Mediterranean Europe (e.g. "classical" Greece) and Africa (e.g. all of "North Africa") describes concisely the impetus of "shared history"

Being repeatedly at war with each other doesn't mean countries do not share a common history, culture and even economy: European kingdoms have been at war for centuries. By the way, the Ottoman empire was seen as a European state until its end: during the XIXth century, it was nicknamed "the sick man of Europe". Political and military alliances were made with it (by France and the Republic of Venice, for example) and there was a huge volume of trade with it throughout its history.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 11:28:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes! I noticed. It's a chronically ironic condition of European relations to peoples around the world implies... war.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 11:56:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unlike the rest of the world, which always lived in peace.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 11:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no peace. There is just war.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't you know that war was invented by Europeans and that they forced other civilisations to adopt their war culture?

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Cheyenne might dispute the assertion that Europe invented war. But they did fail in persuading others to adopt war as a social reference ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 01:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... Peninsular West Asians (aka Europeans) have been wrong about the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa would seem to be a total red-herring in this context.

Five hundred flawed or flat out wrong explanations for why the bulk of the population of sub-Saharan Africa today have greater cultural affinity for each other than for North Africans does not disprove the cultural affinity.

Pan-Africanism has always solicited and accepted support in North Africa, on the basis of the hope for strength in numbers if nothing else ... and because there are indeed borderland affinities in countries like Mali and Chad, and of course it elides the Sudan problem ...

... but the base of Pan-Africanism is sub-Saharan Africa.

For instance, if UEFA invited in the North African nations, it seems likely they'd leave CAF in a heartbeat. In sub-Saharan Africa, it would be a fraught and heavily politicized issue, with money dueling against heart.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 02:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't intend to characterize "normally closer relationships" between "black" nations at any point in history.

Another way of saying the point is, why in the hell not?

If talking about whether the idea of sub-Saharan Africa is a "real" thing in the here and now, or just a conceptual artefact of Europeans inspired by false theories of "race" ...

... wouldn't the first thing to look for be whether there is a cultural affinity among the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa?

When their nation does not make the World Cup, or if their nation makes the World Cup and then gets eliminated ... if there is a team remaining from Sub-Saharan Africa, people from all over Sub-Saharan Africa cheer for that team.

Of course, its not to say that history does not matter. As my wife says of the people of the Maghreb, they are the people who captured the sister of her grand mother into slavery, and somewhere in the world there are cousins that they know nothing about.

Were the Arab slave traders working on a slave raid somewhere near the bend in the River Congo necessarily from the Maghreb? Were they perhaps from a country like Yemen in the Arabian heartland rather than a country like Morocco in the Maghreb?

For the question at hand, what matters is more that the Maghreb tends to be viewed in Sub-Saharan Africa as a collection of Arab countries that happen to lie on the African continent.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 02:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series