Coup in Guinea-Bissau
Via Robert Farley, something’s going down in Guinea-Bissau:
Army troops shot dead the president of the tiny west African country of Guinea-Bissau early Monday, following a bomb attack that killed the army chief of staff, according to diplomats in the region.
News reports said army troops blamed the president, João Bernardo Vieira, for the death of the army chief, Gen. Batista Tagme Na Wai, who died in an explosion on Sunday night. Diplomats, who spoke in return for anonymity under customary rules, said the president was killed at around 5 a.m. in an attack outside his house and the country’s borders had been closed. “Nobody knows who is in charge,” one diplomat said. “Nobody knows what the army will do.”
The reason the country is so tiny is that there was an itty-bitty Portugese colony here squeezed between the French colonies of Senegal and Guinea. My sense is that though having been colonized has done little good for anyone, my sense is that the post-colonial experience of Portugal’s former colonies in Africa has been worse than that of the French or British colonies.
65 Responses to “Coup in Guinea-Bissau”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Exciting stuff. I would much like to see the coup first-hand. Would be an rather stimulating experience. Imagine.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Not really, see the civil war in Mozambique as an example of how Portugal wasn’t much better than there western european colonizing cousins.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Just a note– at this point, it’s not accurate to label this a coup. From your own link it was a revenge killing and there has been no evidence of an army takeover. It’s certainly possible that a coup is what it will turn out to be, but there isn’t one yet.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Read somewhere that the army is denying that there’s been a “coup,” though take that for what it’s worth.
On the last point — I’m far from an expert, but my understanding is there’s some academic literature arguing that being colonized by the British was the preferred option. The British tended to import more of the rule-of-law structure from home, and to train more of the locals to implement it. That left behind some sense of structure when the colonizers left.
The classic case of that, though, is India. Part of the problem for most African countries is that, while the colonial experience was devastating and dislocating, it was also relatively short. Before a new normal had been established, the Europeans up and left.
If anyone actually knows this stuff, please correct.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
With the notable exception of Cape Verde, which has managed to transform itself into a service-oriented market economy with relatively high standards of living. (Although, to be fair, remittances still supplement GDP by at least 20%, as more Cape Verdeans live outside of the country than in.)
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
my sense is that the post-colonial experience of Portugal’s former colonies in Africa has been worse than that of the French or British colonies
But the big Belgian colony was even worse.
Myles:
I would much like to see the coup first-hand.
??? This is a really weird response. Yes, I suppose it would be stimulating, but there might be some unpleasantness and possibility of getting shot involved. You might be happy to learn that the U.S. has a pretty substantial branch of government workers whose job it is to go out and serve in these kinds of “stimulating” situations.
Oddly enough, though, a lot of the Republican leaders who tried to involve the U.S. in as many of these stimulating situations as possible declined the opportunity to participate when they were young enough to be placed in harm’s way.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
greg marx,
The existing literature does say that, but this result is almost entirely based on the fact that Brits had many colonies outside Africa, more than other world powers.
Africa is just a big mess and no country really does well, no matter who it was colonized by.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Yes, I guess no matter how bad Zimbabwe and Kenya have become, they don’t hold a candle to Angola.
The worst colonial and post-colonial experience has been the once-Belgian Congo which had the genocidal heart of darkness reign of King Leopold, secessionist wars in the 1960s (even a brief visit by Che Guevara), the kleptomanic reign of Mobutu and most recently the first genocidal war of the 21st century, with neighbouring countries and internal gangs grabbing a share of the mineral wealth. The one fact that sticks in my mind is that the Belgians skipped in the 1960s leaving less than 20 college graduates to run a country with a population of many, many millions.
Incidentally, Guinea-Bissau was a leading Marxist guerilla light of the 1970s – its first leader Amilcar Cabral was a poster boy but he was assassinated. It was then Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands, but I think the Islands have seceded.
Even East Timor has not prospered, even with the good will of the rest of the world.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
My limited understanding is that the end of Portuguese colonialism was defined by neglect more than anything else. Portugal itself was economically weak and politically unstable compared to most other colonizers, so the colonies were largely ignored, for better and worse.
That was the case anyway in East Timor, Portugal’s former possession in southeast Asia.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
??? This is a really weird response. Yes, I suppose it would be stimulating, but there might be some unpleasantness and possibility of getting shot involved.
Oh of course. But it is all rather exciting still. A friend was in Caracas when they had the big (unsuccessful) coup against that bastard Chavez. The possibility of getting shot, however, is significantly reduced if you view from the safety of a major foreign embassy (he locked himself in the British embassy). A couple others I know was in Bangkok during the recent coup. Exciting experiences.
And I had no clue you bring U.S Republicans into this; what do they have to do with a coup in Guinea-Bissau.
Still. What I would give to see a coup first-hand. Terrifically exciting stuff. That’s why I rather like Simon Mann; at least he’s out there doing exciting stuff. We ought to see more coups in those parts of the world; would be awfully exciting stuff to watch on television.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I think you should go and check it out.
People get shot and you’re getting ‘excited’ by it.
If it’s not a parody comment, then you’re a piece of shit, getting a hardon off of misery.
go get some excitement. hopefully right between the eyes.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The worst colonial and post-colonial experience has been the once-Belgian Congo which had the genocidal heart of darkness reign of King Leopold, secessionist wars in the 1960s (even a brief visit by Che Guevara)
Oh bugger off with the Poli Sci lectures, you preposterous prick. I don’t much to read about Congolese history; all rather dour and grim stuff.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I don’t think you want to be in a state where the president is murdered hours after the opposition leader was killed. Particularly in Africa, which has more than it’s fair share of absolute horror shows.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I think these sort of “which was worse” conversations can be a tad absurd, places like Central African Republic (where the former leader supposedly ate his enemies…apocryphal perhaps but widely believed) or Chad or hello, Sudan and Rwanda (all French) or Liberia and Sierra Leone for the British examples, would seem to suggest that such generalizations can be argued with horrible examples from many places to prove just about any point. The places with one powerful horrible man in charge have all been awful.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I agree with Myles: instead of all but caressing himself thinking of civil war and massacres, he should go check it out in person. Perhaps he could even have some awfully exciting conversations about the European job market with some of the coup leaders.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
He’s more likely to whine like a bitch about his citi shares.
Why don’t you enlist Myles? I’m sure there’s an IED which would liven your day no end.
Pathetic little pussy.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I don’t know much about the Portugese influence, but Guinea Bissau has become a key transit point for cocaine between South America and Europe. This, more than anything, has likely contributed to the coup.
The worries are that Guinea Bissau is becoming a narco-state. I don’t know enough about the players in the coup to know if this fear is being realized.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Liberia was an American colony (more or less — settled by free blacks).
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
All the Portuguese colonies got fucked over because there was rapid decolonization in 1975. A hard right government (very Franco like) had been ruling the country and then Socialists came to power. Being good left wingers, they were freed all the colonies immediately and left with not even a hint of transition to the new native rulers
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
my sense is that the post-colonial experience of Portugal’s former colonies in Africa has been worse than that of the French or British colonies.
Has anyone mentioned Salazar’s refusal to grant Portugal’s African colonies independence in the 60’s and the subsequent wars of independence these colonies waged? Long armed conflict (and the absence of assistance from Portugal in transitioning to independence) has probably hindered the development of these countries.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I don’t much to read about Congolese history; all rather dour and grim stuff.
You know what else is grim? The president getting shot by the military after the army chief dies in an explosion.
These are people’s lives and the welfare of countries at stake, not an opportunity for you to get your jollies off of bloodshed.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Africa is just a big mess and no country really does well, no matter who it was colonized by.
================================================
Sadly that pretty much sums it up
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Miley has fantasies about being Our Man In Bissau, fopping around in a white suit and cravat, repeating lines from Graham Greene novels while the coup (or non-coup) goes down. Pip-pip, ra-ther, what?
The narco issue is important, but probably not the imminent cause of the weekend’s events. Still, if you’re going to have the army chief of staff knocked off, you should probably make your getaway first.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Don’t feed the trolls. I’ve fed Myles before; it’s not worth your time.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Come on, are you guys seriously saying that you wouldn’t like to be involved in a revolution? Not one like this, and not one of those coups common (sadly) to many African countries where it’s two gangs of corrupt tyrants fighting over the spoils. But a coup or revolution where the battle lines between good and evil are clearly drawn, and where you can feel involved in overthrowing tyrants and oligarchies and helping to serve a truly visionary leader. Personally, I would have loved to have been a soldier of Velasco’s in the coup of 1968, or a Sandinista footsoldier in 1979, much as I would have loved to have been in the French Resistance.
Coups like this one, where it’s just one gang of thieves versus another, are tragic and depressing, but it would be terrifically inspiring, I think, to be involved in an actual revolution of good against evil.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
it’s odd that Myles and I are the only ones here expressing the thought that it would be nice to be involved in a coup- but apparently for entirely different reasons.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Having lived for a couple of years in Francophone Africa, and spent some time in Lusophone Africa, I have some (but limited) perspective to offer. The Portuguese tended to build beautiful cities, which are now in ruins. But that was pretty much all the Portuguese did — build a city and exploit the countryside. The Portuguese also got to much of sub-Sarahan Africa first, giving them a head start in slave trading. That depopulated whole areas. Other colonizers also engaged in slave trading, but the Portuguese were particularly brutal.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
it’s odd that Myles and I are the only ones here expressing the thought that it would be nice to be involved in a coup
Not really, given that you’re heads and tails on the One Fucking Weirdo coin.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Re: Portugal’s rapid decolonization
Portugal did leave its colonies in a huge hurry. In its years of colonization it made little effort to build local government structures or capability. Ex-Portuguese colonies liberated in the 1970s (East Timor, Mozambique, Angola) are known for being a mess, but with the sample size being so small it’s hard to say exactly why with any precision.
As for why the Portuguese pulled out so quickly, in 1974 the authoritarian Salazar government was spending 45+% of its annual budget on the military, including 200,000 soldiers for its colonies. Obviously that was unsustainable, and frustration with the government’s messed-up priorities fed the left-wing coup that overthrew Salazar and led to way to Portuguese democracy.
As one of my professors said, looking at it another way you could argue that its colonies ended up liberating Portugal.
Google books citation here:
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Crap. Sorry, citation here:
http://tinyurl.com/cv8hdh
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Pseudonymous,
Actually, it’s because hipsters like you are a bunch of decadent p*ssies who can’t understand the concept that other people might be willing to fight and die for a cause they believe in, since you yourself don’t believe in anything much beyond the pot, porn and Playstation lifestyle.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Myles:
I would much like to see the coup first-hand.
Lived through 2 of them in Guatemala in the 80s. Not very interesting actually. I was out in a rural area in the Peace Corps and not in the capital but still.
Typically what would happen in Guatemala is that several military commands would mobilize and start moving on the capital. Most of the military bases were outside the capital as was the guerrilla war so if you’d see a big military convoy headed towards the capital you knew something was up.
With troops moving on the capital the president would be under intense pressure to capitulate to the military in some fashion. Often the rebel officers didn’t actually want to take over the government, just get the president to capitulate on some urgent issue that was affecting the military (usually to do with budgets, control over military institutions, or human rights issues). Soldiers would also be dispatched to take over all the TV and radio stations so that during a coup attempt you’d usually just hear nothing but martial music and see the Guatemalan coat of arms on TV. Eventually after a day or so when it would become clear who had the upper hand in terms of loyalties the coup would suddenly come to an end with either the resignation of the president or some major capitulation to the military.
Generally no shots were ever fired. Everyone knew their role and played the game as they were accustomed to do it. It was basically just the military’s way of reminding the president who was really in charge.
Don’t mistake a coup with a revolution or civil war. Two entirely different things that involve civilians and actual bloodshed. Coups often do not.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I think BPT hit the nail on the head. The old Portuguese dictatorship ‘way overstayed their welcome at home. Meanwhile, the increasingly NATO-oriented officer corps was tired of fighting in Africa, even though the wars were going their way in Angola and Mozambique.
When the officers took over, and dropped their African colonies like a hot rock, the departure of over 1 million ethnic Portuguese, mixed heritage, and assimilated Africans caused an instant brain and capital vacuum.
The Portuguese were relatively comfortable with the idea of a multi- and mixed-ethnic state, so things coulda-woulda-shoulda have easily turned out much better than they did.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Man, y’all are pathetic. I’m with Myles and Hector.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I am rather amused at all the reproach so far directed at me. I am not proposing some inane, genocidal act; I am just interested in observing.
And I am afraid you have got it quite wrong; in tropical weather one dons a cotton (most times beige) suit, rather than just an white one. I haven’t actually seen anyone wear seersucker in Africa; perhaps this would be a good time to start; after all, it would be rather interesting to see a bit of American South, seersucker and bow ties and all, in Africa.
One of the nicer things about African colonialism was rather the nice costumes that came out of it: pith helmets, white uniforms, tropical spats, I wonder what a reconstituted colony would look like.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
When the officers took over, and dropped their African colonies like a hot rock, the departure of over 1 million ethnic Portuguese, mixed heritage, and assimilated Africans caused an instant brain and capital vacuum.
Well you can hardly blame the Portuguese for that could you? If post-colonial history was any indication, it was rather smart of those folks to pack up and leave at the first opportunity, when they still can sell their land and assets for a reasonable amount of liquid value; I say it was a good call. Those who didn’t usually ended up getting their stuff confiscated; see, for example, Zimbabwe.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Hector,
fuck off and fight then, stop going on about how decadent everyone else is.
you’re just a big a pussy as Myles though, so you won’t.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
BTW, I did live in the midst of a revolution, and due to an incredible stroke of bad timing, was drawn in in a small way. I can appreciate what I think Myles feels he’s missing.
For a couple of months, my sense of feeling alive, free, and being very focused on staying that way was in retrospect quite tonic. At the time, the fear that drove me to keep a day pack with passport, residence permit, cash, and some sundries stashed under my bed was not at all pleasant.
The desire to witness war and revolution from a near distance reminds me of a mid-century quote from a female reporter whose name eludes me: “give me a man as exciting as a war.”
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Or take South Africa. I knew a good family who packed up for New Zealand when it became clear that the ANC was going to take over; well, it was a mightily wise thing to do. Their (late) neighbour’s house has depreciated, and even worse, the late neighbour got quite killed by street thugs that you see reflected in current South African crime stats.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
James,
How tiresome, and how predictable. It’s not enough that you guys are a bunch of p*ssies who don’t believe in anything….you actually have to be proud of it.
I suppose I would, if the circumstances were right; if I happened to be in Venezuela when a civil war broke out I would almost certainly get involved. As things stand, however, the few revolutions happening today are peaceful ones, at least so far (though I doubt that will continue indefinitely). I do hope to work/live in South America at some point though, hopefully Chávez will still be in office by then.
Myles, it would have been nice if the Portuguese in Mozambique and Bissau had stayed to try and contribute to the good of the country. Perhaps that was too much to expect though.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
The way I red Myles initial post was that he wanted to be involved in a coup because he does not view Obama as a legitimate president. Assuming that is not the case, I get what you mean. I’d still rather not be involved in such a thing but I’d probably take part if I was there.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The way I red Myles initial post was that he wanted to be involved in a coup because he does not view Obama as a legitimate president.
Liberal paranoia at its best, ain’t it? By the way, it is disgraceful you seem to tolerate that odious Chavez. What a despicable, noxious chimp he is.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I meant Hector.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Why, because he wants to put greedy little b*stards like you in your place?
I don’t ‘tolerate’ Chávez, I’m a vociferous supporter, and I hope for the expension of Venezuelan Socialism all over the continent. I think it’s despicable that you want to export degenerate late-capitalist American society all over the globe.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I don’t blame anyone who departed from the Portuguese colonies for doing so. I was suggesting that the Portuguese Government could have handled the transition a wee bit better. However, they were busy with their own revolution at home, and so didn’t care for any distractions.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Hector,
I don’t doubt people believe in things. I just doubt you have the stones to go out to a revolution. You’d rather write about it, and berate everyone else for their lack of conviction.
full of shit in other words.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
The Christian Science Monitor is wondering if the killing in this case was orchestrated by Colombian narco-traffickers. The islands off Guinea-Bissau are used as a staging point for smuggling cocaine into Europe and Russia.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The lifestyle of the 3 P’s has to recommend it that it doesn’t take as many deaths of other people to make it fun as the more exciting version your sketching out does.
If Cheney and Bush had smoked weed and played Call of Duty, the world would be a better place.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Chad or hello, Sudan and Rwanda (all French) or Liberia and Sierra Leone for the British examples
Out of five, you’ve got only two right.
the left-wing coup that overthrew Salazar and led to way to Portuguese democracy
The Revolução dos Cravos of 1974 didn’t overthrow Salazar, who had retired from the government in 1968 because of incapacitation and had died in 1970.
Holding India up as an example of how good it was to have been colonized by the British is preposterous. The partitions of 1947 and 1971 involved the deaths, probably, of millions. And Pakistan hasn’t exactly been a beacon of stability.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
if I happened to be in Venezuela when a civil war broke out I would almost certainly get involved.
You’d just have to recruit Miley the Fop to walk in front of you, clunking together coconut shells.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Jeanne:
Chad or hello, Sudan and Rwanda (all French) or Liberia and Sierra Leone for the British examples
Herschel:
Out of five, you’ve got only two right.
For the record, the most recent colonial powers were:
Chad: French (correct)
Sudan: British (incorrect)
Rwanda: Belgian (incorrect)
Liberia: American (freed slaves) (incorrect)
Sierra Leone: British (correct)
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Portugal did suck as a colonizer. Look at the state of their former colonies: Angola, Mozambique, etc. But in this instance, the USA also bears significant blame for Guinea-Bissau’s woes. GB used to be a rice exporter. But during its war for independence, the US backed fascist Portugal, who used US munitions to bomb dikes and flood ricefields with seawater. The country still has to import a major amount of its rice.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
But during its war for independence, the US backed fascist Portugal
A) Portugal has never been truly “fascist” in the Italian sense of the word, and B) it was arguable that Portugal was upholding the defence of Western civilisation in that part of the world when it was resisting independence. It was proven right.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
If you want proof for how bad the Portuguese were as colonizers, look at the relative situation in Portuguese-controlled Macao vs. British-controlled Hong Kong during the Cultural Revolution. Hong Kong was a safe haven for whomever could escape there. Meanwhile, the Portuguese government didn’t care that the CR’s violence reached Macao.
Part of the reason the Portuguese left Mozambique, etc. so quickly is that the parties they left in charge were allies of the left-leaning military faction behind the Carnation Revolution. Some had fought alongside the likes of Frelimo against Salazar. Part of why things went to hell afterwards is that Rhodesia and South Africa started funding terrorist groups like UNITA and Renamo, in addition to several tactical missteps on the side of the new governments, such as how Frelimo unpopularly tried to end dowries. (On a side note, for some reason under JFK we briefly funded Frelimo.)
As for you Myles, as someone who has a lot of family throughout southern Africa, including South Africa, you’re an idiot. Get a life.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Myles,
The Angolan and Mozambican governments were many things, including often incompetent, but they were certainly never actively evil in the sense of a Mobutu on the right or a Mugabe on the left. I’m unaware of massive oppression or economic injustice that was carried out by the Angolan or Mozambican governments- there was tremendous suffering in both countries, of course, but more as a result of the U.S. backed civil wars. The Machel regime in Mozambique was, by the standards of the region, quite humane (and let’s not forget that the Angolans and Mozambicans did quite a lot to undermine apartheid from without). And the ex-Portuguese mini-nations (Sao Tome, Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau) seem to have been all in all not bad places to live by African standards (although in Cape Verde’s case that may have been dependent on remittances from Cape Verdeans in New England).
In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about, unless you think that all African governments are equal, and equally bad. The Portuguese weren’t as bad as the Belgians, the Dutch or the Germans, certainly, but they were certainly not ‘defending Western civilization’ in Africa.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 am
I am rather unconcerned if the Angolan or Mozambican governments were “humane” by African standards, whatever those standards supposed to be. That is their business. I am merely making a point that post-colonial African governments weren’t terribly successful in retaining the expatriate professionals and technocrats who would have been indispensable for healthy economic performance and keeping the governing superstructure in place. Quite frankly, the freedom fighters-turned-presidents took the expatriates for granted at best, and celebrated their exit at worst. Some of the expatriates, under the more unscrupulous (and stupid) national governments, suffered ill use if not outright molestation and loss of property; unfortunately, the impression of dumb, destructive African government became imprinted as an overall impression, and no one who had the least brains would have taken the risk wagering that his own post-colonial government was not going to confiscate his ass.
Just witness how difficult it is for South Africa to hold onto its central bank governor, an old-line Afrikaner. And this is South Africa, a relatively civilised, well-run country. Just imagine how bad it was for countries run by lesser men. I believe one country, I believe it was Kenya, had at the beginning an Englishman, an accomplished civil servant, as minister of finance; he was soon demoted to “economic advisor” on the bogus technical excuse of non-citizenship. That was the sort of shaky signals sent out by post-colonial African governments; you can not blame the expats if it was not well-received.
Now compare this to Hong Kong. Observe, for example, the judicial bench there, where appellate court proceedings are still carried out entirely in English, before mostly British judges. Westerners of all stripes are quite willing to work in HK. I imagine if the African governments had adopted a similarly enlightened line their administration would have been better served.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 am
And it was not like the expatriates were gratuitously packing up and leaving; I have heard not few complaints about the erosion of their lifestyle they suffered upon leaving Africa, with sunny weather, cheap domestic help, relaxed competition in business, and the like. It was a charmed colonial life.
What made those people leave was not cultural aversion; it was economic insecurity. And we are seeing this happen again, albeit on a much smaller and nowhere near atrocious scale, with post-apartheid South Africa.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 am
My god you’re an idiot. These banks were little more than bailout mechanisms for when the apartheid government ran out of money administering an expensive apartheid system. An executive I knew who was working at a major former South African bank that moved oversees when apartheid first ended brought in a lot of money and new business for the bank, but left because he felt that the people there were among the stupidest he had worked with in the world and the amount of racism he received from even his subordinates (he was just about the only non-white guy among the higher-ups) was too much to have to put up with.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 am
I guess this is the inevitable post from the outraged Portuguese who couldn’t believe the appalling amount of crap that had been written on the comments section.
There is always one of these.
I considered releasing my petty anger via a number of ad hominem to individually punish the ignorance of the prevaricating commentators, but, when I saw their numbers, I quickly gave up the idea. It’s really much easier to complement the very few people who got it right.
So my sincerest congratulations to BPT, cmholmes and Herschel. Good work, guys.
So, why are former portuguese colonies in Africa (mainly Angola, Moçambique and Guiné) in such bad shape?
No great mystery: the fascist dictatorship in Portugal was unwilling to start the decolonization process that other colonies had followed, and instead Salazar (and after him Caetano) chose to wage wars that buried both the Portuguese and colonial economies. The wars started in the 60s and only ended with the revolution in 1974.
Then, Angola in particular served as a proxy for the cold war, with each political party/military faction supported by the American and Soviet blocks. Angola is by far the richest of the former colonies in natural resources, having oil, gold and diamonds, but, because of almost uninterrupted war since the 60s up until 2002, it paradoxically has one of the poorest populations in the world.
Now, what I’m about to say is of the greatest importance. No matter how we are portrayed in Amistad, 1492, and other third-rate movies, Portuguese people:
- don’t speak Spanish (this is what hurts us the most)
- Were *not* particularly cruel and brutal with the natives of their colonies.
Now, the reason Portugal was not very nasty with its colonies was not out of the tenderness of our Portuguese hearts, but essentially because we always had a much smaller population than our rival colonizing powers. Therefore, we had smaller armies and navies. Therefore, we tended to be more diplomatic and focus on trade instead of a conquest approach (including, to be sure, extensive slave trade with Brazil and India).
The smaller army also explains the survival of the great majority of the indigenous population in Brazil, which didn’t happen in the Spanish, English, French and Dutch colonies. We also had a much higher degree of miscegenation than the English or French, but historians aren’t sure why this was so.
We were also, just so you finger pointers know, the first colonizer nation to abolish slavery on our mainland (and India), in 1761.
We were always a very modern people, much ahead of our times. If it wasn’t for the minor distraction of 50 years of a fascist regime, we would really show those damn Scandinavians what it is to live well…
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
My god you’re an idiot. These banks were little more than bailout mechanisms for when the apartheid government ran out of money administering an expensive apartheid system.
I am speaking of the reserve bank, not the private banks. And in any case the Afrikaner takeover of commercial banking is a relatively new phenomenon; it has mostly been a very Cape Town Anglo sort of vocation until the election of the hard-line Nationalists in 1948.
We were always a very modern people, much ahead of our times. If it wasn’t for the minor distraction of 50 years of a fascist regime
Blaming fascism for Portuguese woes is a bit comical, to say the least. Falangist Spain was equally fascist, if not more so, but under Francisco Franco Spain developed, modernised, and in general improved itself at a dizzying pace, turning an formerly agrarian society into a competitive 20-century one. If Franco could be a constructive fascist despot, why could not Salazar?
Fascism is not to blame; lousy leadership, in its purest essence, in fascism or in democracy, is.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
Re: Blaming fascism for Portuguese woes is a bit comical, to say the least. Falangist Spain was equally fascist, if not more so, but under Francisco Franco Spain developed, modernised, and in general improved itself at a dizzying pace, turning an formerly agrarian society into a competitive 20-century one.
And now, Spain has the worst of both worlds: the savage capitalism of the Right, and the atheist nihilism of the Left. Great job, Franco. Actually, I wouldn’t blame Franco for that, the _last_ thing Franco would have wanted is for Spain to be a liberal, secular, cosmopolitan dystopia. The Falangists, at the very least, recognized that Western capitalism was hollow at its core, even if they had the wrong answer to that problem.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Myles said
“Blaming fascism for Portuguese woes is a bit comical, to say the least. Falangist Spain was equally fascist, if not more so, but under Francisco Franco Spain developed, modernised, and in general improved itself at a dizzying pace, turning an formerly agrarian society into a competitive 20-century one. If Franco could be a constructive fascist despot, why could not Salazar?”
My sentence about “modern people” was meant to be humorous. Sorry if that wasn’t very clear.
Well, “dizzying pace” is a bit hyperbolic. It would not be my choice of expression, Spain is still behind France, Germany, Netherlands and Scandinavians countries in most indicators. But I agree with you in your basic argument. Fascist regimes can have different degrees of competence, and Salazar’s regime was much more pernicious to Portugal’s future than Franco’s. So, when compared to Portugal, there was indeed a “dizzying pace” of progress, and Franco was a “better” dictator (not in the moral sense, but in his vision of Spain’s future) than Salazar.
In a dictatorship, you’re pretty much stuck with the dictator’s ideas, and Salazar’s ideas were extremely bad. I do think a great number of policies, including those towards decolonization, were very much responsible for some the state of today’s ex-colonies. Remember, Salazar ascended to power in 1926. Could another fascist dictator manage all of this better? Sure, and I agree Franco did. But my point was that the colonial war was extremely unpopular, and if Portugal was a democracy at the time, Salazar would be thrown out of office and I very much doubt there would be a war in the first place.
Hector, how is Spain a “cosmopolitan dystopia”?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
It sounds like you’re creating problems yourself by trying to solve this issue instead of looking at why their is a problem in the first place.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Well said, finally a good report on this stuff
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Hello everyone. I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
I am from Bangladesh and also am speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Ultimate place to look for cheap airfare.”
Thank you so much for your future answers
. Malone.