Starker on 14/5/2025 at 22:28
Partitioning of ethnic groups has had a huge impact on various colonial people, but in Africa it's especially evident. Arbitrary borders that are drawn without any regard to geography or the local communities have resulted not only in the partitioning of ethnic groups, but also disrupted the economic activities of many nomadic cultures, robbing them of economic opportunities that they had adapted to over a long period of time. This in turn increased resource competition and conflict due to the newly limited mobility and resources.
But not all of the impacts were due to ignorance or lack of care -- some of the borders were used as part of a divide and conquer strategy that purposefully divided local "uncooperative" communities to foster conflict and erode the previously existing social order. And one of the reasons for many of the conflicts in the region have been the various administrative reforms by the colonial powers that redistributed land and resources.
Also, through this division, sometimes new distinct nationalities were created where no such distinction had previously existed. In the worst cases, racial science was employed by colonial powers to favour some groups due to their perceived racial superiority, creating class divisions and resulting in a newly created mythology used for genocidal propaganda.
Borders are created through a combination of politics and geography that plays out over centuries. It depends on things such as the wealth of the place, how easy it is to defend, etc. African borders not only affected existing trade routes (trading outside the colony's borders was often prohibited), but also created additional difficulties in governing beyond just security issues. Heterogenous geography makes is more difficult to collect taxes, for example. And the partitioning of Africa created many countries that have serious issues due to their shape and location that have affected their development to this day. Though it doesn't really help that most of the colonial reforms and development were also not done keeping in mind the health or sustainablity of the newly established country, but more for reasons like resource extraction.
My country's borders are not arbitrary, btw. They run pretty much along the ethnic lines of my people, if we exclude some forced concessions due to Russia violating their previous agreements in WW2.
Cipheron on 15/5/2025 at 09:22
As an example of how such divisions were deliberate, there was a thing called "martial race theory". Idi Amin's tribe the Kakwa was considered such a "martial race" and was a small minor tribe disproportionately recruited into the Ugandan military under British colonialism. So they created a racial caste system for the purposes of colonial control, and it was important to choose a minority ethnic group for such purposes, because if they were less numerous than the groups the British wanted to control, all the better to keep them to heel.
That system is literally the whole reason someone like Idi Amin existed and was in the position here was in. It was easy when the British left and guys like Idi Amin ended up taking over they go "oh no how terrible the natives are" but ... they liked it when he was doing terrible things to other tribes under their control.
Here's a research article making the point, but about a related group the Acholi. I guess by making sure two small tribes make up your "martial races" in the same country, then it means neither one can come to dominate, they'll always be rivals at each other's throats, but also outnumbered by the non-martial tribes, thus reliant on the colonizers to maintain their power.
So when the British leave and Kakwa and Acholi take turns ousting each other and form dictatorships, keep in mind these were NOT the dominant ethnic groups of Uganda, they were tiny tribes that the British turned into their armies and enforcers, to rule over the rest of the country. Thus the way to maintain their position once the British leave was to become thugs: they needed the fear to keep the other more numerous tribes in line.
(
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283421223_The_Creation_of_Acholi_Military_Ethnocracy_in_Uganda_1862_to_1962)
Quote:
Although the Acholi constitute only four percent of Uganda's total population, they were the most dominant ethnic community in the country's military during the colonial and most of post-colonial period. British Colonial Administrators identified the Acholi as the best soldierly material in Uganda and transformed them into a martial race. By 1962, the Acholi themselves seemed to have endorsed this as their true identity. So strong was this martial spirit that when in 1986, the Acholi dominated Government of General Tito Okello was toppled, several armed rebellions emerged in the northern half of the country to try and restore the status quo. This paper analyses the creation of the Acholi military ethnocracy in Uganda.
Introduction and Background. The military has been the most dominant institution in the colonial and post-colonial history of Uganda. During the colonial period, the military was used to extend spheres of administration, silence dissenting views and safeguard British interests. In the post-colonial era, the military has remained the major deterministic factor on who governs Uganda. In this exceptional military history, the Acholi ethnic group became the most dominant from the colonial period up to 1986 when the current government captured power. Yet, the Acholi are one of the smallest ethnic groups in the country taking only four percent of the population. According to Ruddy and Koen (1999), the Acholi, far from being born warriors, were transformed into a military ethnocracy.
heywood on 15/5/2025 at 15:29
Quote Posted by Starker
Partitioning of ethnic groups has had a huge impact on various colonial people, but in Africa it's especially evident. Arbitrary borders that are drawn without any regard to geography or the local communities have resulted not only in the partitioning of ethnic groups, but also disrupted the economic activities of many nomadic cultures, robbing them of economic opportunities that they had adapted to over a long period of time. This in turn increased resource competition and conflict due to the newly limited mobility and resources.
But not all of the impacts were due to ignorance or lack of care -- some of the borders were used as part of a divide and conquer strategy that purposefully divided local "uncooperative" communities to foster conflict and erode the previously existing social order. And one of the reasons for many of the conflicts in the region have been the various administrative reforms by the colonial powers that redistributed land and resources.
Also, through this division, sometimes new distinct nationalities were created where no such distinction had previously existed. In the worst cases, racial science was employed by colonial powers to favour some groups due to their perceived racial superiority, creating class divisions and resulting in a newly created mythology used for genocidal propaganda.
Borders are created through a combination of politics and geography that plays out over centuries. It depends on things such as the wealth of the place, how easy it is to defend, etc. African borders not only affected existing trade routes (trading outside the colony's borders was often prohibited), but also created additional difficulties in governing beyond just security issues. Heterogenous geography makes is more difficult to collect taxes, for example. And the partitioning of Africa created many countries that have serious issues due to their shape and location that have affected their development to this day. Though it doesn't really help that most of the colonial reforms and development were also not done keeping in mind the health or sustainablity of the newly established country, but more for reasons like resource extraction.
My country's borders are not arbitrary, btw. They run pretty much along the ethnic lines of my people, if we exclude some forced concessions due to Russia violating their previous agreements in WW2.
Some parts of Africa are stable and some parts are perpetually at war and practically ungovernable. What's the difference between the stable parts and unstable parts? It's religious and cultural. Most of the current conflicts in Africa have nothing to do with colonialism and are due to Islam spreading south through the Sahel. Sudan, for example, is in a perpetual civil war between Arab and African ethnic groups that wasn't caused by any border drawn between them. A border had to be introduced to create an independent South Sudan in order to quell the last flare up, but there's still a civil war in Sudan between the Arabs and Darfuri. There's also perpetual conflict between Bantu tribes in the Great Lakes region whose origins go back 500 years to a Tutsi-dominated feudal kingdom that long predated colonialism.
Western European powers colonized all of North America, South America, Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia and carved borders through all of them. Some of the borders were drawn along ethnic lines, but most were not.
Almost none of the borders in North or South America can be attributed to ethnicity or religion. Yet most of it is stable with small pockets of instability. The island of Hispaniola was divided with a border to separate two cultures, and one of them is stable and one is not. If not for the border, the whole island would be a mess. The other hot spots in Central America and Columbia are due to cartels.
In South Asia, the conflicts are predominantly religious. The borders there are not arbitrary, they were drawn up to keep the Hindus and Muslims separate, but they still fight each other. Sri Lanka is one island, not divided up by colonial powers, and it has two ethnic groups that can't seem to share the place.
In Indochina and Southeast Asia, there's perpetual ethnic conflict in Myanmar which wasn't divided up. Borneo and New Guinea were divided up by colonial powers, but they are stable. Most of the other conflicts in the region were due to Chinese imperialism.
The Levant has been fought over since before the Crusades. It was once ruled by the Egyptian empire, the Roman empire, the Ottoman empire, and the British empire. Whenever there's not an empire controlling it, the various religious groups fight over it.
heywood on 15/5/2025 at 16:55
Quote Posted by Cipheron
As an example of how such divisions were deliberate, there was a thing called "martial race theory". Idi Amin's tribe the Kakwa was considered such a "martial race" and was a small minor tribe disproportionately recruited into the Ugandan military under British colonialism. So they created a racial caste system for the purposes of colonial control, and it was important to choose a minority ethnic group for such purposes, because if they were less numerous than the groups the British wanted to control, all the better to keep them to heel.
That system is literally the whole reason someone like Idi Amin existed and was in the position here was in. It was easy when the British left and guys like Idi Amin ended up taking over they go "oh no how terrible the natives are" but ... they liked it when he was doing terrible things to other tribes under their control.
Here's a research article making the point, but about a related group the Acholi. I guess by making sure two small tribes make up your "martial races" in the same country, then it means neither one can come to dominate, they'll always be rivals at each other's throats, but also outnumbered by the non-martial tribes, thus reliant on the colonizers to maintain their power.
So when the British leave and Kakwa and Acholi take turns ousting each other and form dictatorships, keep in mind these were NOT the dominant ethnic groups of Uganda, they were tiny tribes that the British turned into their armies and enforcers, to rule over the rest of the country. Thus the way to maintain their position once the British leave was to become thugs: they needed the fear to keep the other more numerous tribes in line.
(
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283421223_The_Creation_of_Acholi_Military_Ethnocracy_in_Uganda_1862_to_1962)
Before the British, the region was dominated by the kingdom of Buganda, which grew by warring with surrounding kingdoms. And Bunyoro was dominant before Buganda expanded, and both kingdoms kept slaves and took conquered peoples as slaves. Now that the British are long gone, the two kingdoms are back in existence and the rest of the country is difficult to govern because the people there never had much of a governing tradition before the British. The Acholi to the north were a loose collection of small clans or fiefdoms. Kony took advantage of that and filled that vaccum. Now what are we supposed to do about his LNA short of going in there and occupying it again?
Nicker on 15/5/2025 at 17:13
Quote:
Some parts of Africa are stable and some parts are perpetually at war and practically ungovernable. What's the difference between the stable parts and unstable parts? It's religious and cultural.
Oh! Just like Europe until 1945.
Inter-tribal and feudal warfare is common throughout history. What's different in Africa is that such warfare was exacerbated and amplified by industrial scale colonialism and exploitation, and mismanagement. When the colonial powers withdrew after WW1 and WW2, they left their arbitrary administrative districts (countries). Instead of the previous adjacent, natural geological areas inhabited by exclusive populations, there were now two or more arbitrary districts containing majority and minority populations.
When ancestral conflicts resumed (as the Europeans knew and hoped they would) they were now complicated by new motivations. Majority populations were outraged by the mistreatment of their minorities in adjacent countries, even as they did precisely the same in their country. Minority populations might also become disruptive agents against their oppressors, exacerbating the conflicts.
Even in this very simplified form, the problem is far more complicated than your version.
This deliberate colonial neglect also occurred with the Partition of India in 1947.
Thanks for helping us destroy fascism. Have this eternal shit-storm as a token of our gratitude.Pretty much the same in the Middle East. Again, look at the map. It has the highest concentration of straight international borders on the planet.
heywood on 15/5/2025 at 17:50
I'd like to hear an example where drawn borders are the source of a current conflict in Africa. There's a lot of somewhat arbitrary borders crossing the Sahel from east to west, but pretty much every country across that region is fighting the expansion of Islam from north to south. The borders in the great lakes region were not arbitrary but drawn roughly around the pre-existing kingdoms and ethnic groups, who are back to fighting each other for dominance as they did before colonization. And they would still be fighting if the borders were in different locations or not there at all.
Likewise in the middle east, I'd like to hear an example where a badly drawn border gave rise to a conflict.
Straight borders aren't necessarily a source of wars. The US and Canada have the longest straight border in the world and it's completely arbitrary.
Are you trying to argue there wouldn't be conflict between religious groups over Kashmir if there wasn't a partition?
demagogue on 15/5/2025 at 18:26
This is the uti possidetis problem if y'all want a search term. Since every country in the world has borders, just about every colonial state colonial borders, and most of them have been contested at some point in history, there are books and books worth of case studies on the issue. A typical problem is that the boundaries of ethnic or national groups is different than the borders of a state government's jurisdiction that was set in the colonial period for different reasons, so you get mixed allegiances that raises dozens of different issues ... connected to probably most conflicts.
A lot of conflict in Afghanistan is related to Pashtun nationalists across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. India and Pakistan have the most pockmarked messed up border in the world directly related to three or more conflicts. Violence against Rohingya in Myanmar is linked to ethnic diversity across the colonial border between Myanmar and Bangladesh. The top 1/4 of Thailand is ethnically Lao because the function of setting the British India and French Indochina border was to leave Thailand as a buffer state between the two. Vietnamese in Cambodia. Tibetans and Uyghurs in China. Chinese in Korea. Koreans in Japan. Japanese in Brazil. Guatemalans in Mexico. Venezuelans and Mexicans in the US...
If you want to talk about Africa, Sudan's problems go back at least to British occupation of Egypt and control over Sudan creating a north-south conflict that still reverberates in violence today and the creation of South Sudan.
There's discrimination or violence for all of these cases and colonialism is typically at the root of them in one way or another, the border being just one part of the story. The story goes on forever.
Nicker on 15/5/2025 at 18:32
Quote:
dema: "This is the uti possidetis problem if y'all want a search term."
Hey, it has a name. Who'da thunk it?
Quote:
Likewise in the middle east, I'd like to hear an example where a badly drawn border gave rise to a conflict.
Ummmmmm. Israel?
Quote:
Straight borders aren't necessarily a source of wars. The US and Canada have the longest straight border in the world and it's completely arbitrary.
Indeed. And the exception doesn't disprove prove the rule.
But, my bad, the Middle East has the second largest concentration of straight borders, after Africa, especially northern Africa, immediately adjacent to the Middle East. Now compare those straight borders to the ones in the European countries surrounding the Mediterranean.
Quote:
Are you trying to argue there wouldn't be conflict between religious groups over Kashmir if there wasn't a partition?
Nope. That's would be a silly assertion. I am saying that ancestral hostilities are exacerbated and amplified by arbitrary partitions.
Starker on 15/5/2025 at 21:08
Quote Posted by heywood
I'd like to hear an example where drawn borders are the source of a current conflict in Africa.
Nobody is arguing that a badly drawn border is
the source of any current conflict, though. No conflict really stems from one single source. The argument is that badly drawn borders in Africa have affected the development of these countries and increased or created tensions between groups of people. Also, as I mentioned, this is only part of the story -- colonialism in general has affected the development of these countries and has played a significant part in the current state of the region. This is not to say that Africans have no part in this or that they are not responsible for any problems. But I would argue European involvement in Africa has undeniably had an effect that is felt today and not necessarily for the better.
Pyrian on 15/5/2025 at 22:58
Ultimately recurring conflicts with neighbors is the historical norm virtually everywhere and it's probably more instructive to look at how good neighbors managed to get along.
