From: ze@carson.u.washington.edu (Jose Magalhaes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Questions about Angola
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:57:36 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <2571@blue.cis.pitt.edu> pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Makala P Mweene) writes:
>
>Although Angola has the greatest mineral wealth of any country in the 
>whole world, infact it is woefully underdeveloped. The majority of its
>people are rural peasants who are illiterate.
>
	That is correct.
>
>As you know, the country was under Portuguese rule for 400 hundred years 
>In that time Portugal filled the country with hundreds of thousands of it
>s own lower classes. Coming from the poorest country in Europe, these peop
>le were often as illiterate as the Africans they found. They were
>hence very insecure and made sure to maintain the Africans in as backward
>a condition as possible.
>
	I have to disagree: 1) Portugal is not (and was not) the poorest
country in Europe although it was poor; 
			    2) Since the majority of the Portuguese belonged
poor it is obvious that the majority of colonist belonged to "lower classes".
However the colonization was as heterogeneous as the Portuguese society was.
			    3) The Angolans were "maintained in a condition
as backward as possible" not because the colonists were insecure but because
that condition would allow them to rule "better".
>
>From the very beggining Africans ferociously fought the Portuguese. The
>Mbundu under Queen Nzinga, dumbfounded and comfounded Portuguese slavers
>for as long Period of time. The Portuguese with the help of gun powder
>eventually prevailed, though. As a result millions of Africans were carted
>away to slavery through the harbour of Luanda. Infact I have seen it said
>that 4/5 th of the slaves who went to Brazil came from central Africa through
>Angola. So infact you are interested in the right country.
>
	This might not have an immediate interest to this discussion but it
is part of History: the Portuguese were the first to abolish the traffic of
slaves. Long after Brazil gained the independence from Portugal (more than
a century) the slave trade still continued (Brazil was the last country to
abolish slavery).
>
>The foregoing is a small part of the reason why Africans so deeply resented
>and despised Portugal and its citizens. It explains why Africans had no de
>sire to learn Portuguese or any other foreign language.
>
	Why should they have any desire to learn Portuguese if they spoke
their own languages? Of course Portuguese was imposed on them, as was 
English in India, and so on...
>
>I think you raise a valid point. Angola is a huge country with a population of 
>11 million. 60% are associated with the Mbundu ethnic groupd which is located
>in the central and South Western areas of the country. The bakongo and the
>Lunda form other big ethnic groups. 
>
>Savimbi began his career as senior official in MPLA, which at the time was the
>main group resisting the hated Portuguese. Angola and Mozambique were unique
>in the sense that they administered as provinces, not colonies of Portugal.
>In 1964, at the instigatiuon of the CIA, he formed UNITA. This counter-revo
>lutionary organinsation masquaraded as a freedom fighting unit, but infact it
>served the interests of Portugal the same way that Buthelezis IFP serves white
>South African interests in South Africa. In 1975 Salazar was overthrown in
>Portugal and replaced by Caitano. He immediately declared Angola and Mozambiq
>ue free to go.
>
	The differences between MPLA and UNITA are deeply related to the cold
war. And so is the Portuguese colonialism. Why the the West tolerate for so
long that the Portuguese facist government kept a morimbund empire for so
long? Because they were afraid that those African countries would "fall" under
the USSR influence!
	By the way: Salazar was not overthrown and replaced by Caetano in 1975.
Salazar died in 1969 and was replaced by his protege' Caetano who was 
overthrown in April 25, 1974 by a military coup. And it was the "Junta" 
formed by young revolutionary Captains that declared Angola, Mozambique, Cape
Verde, Guinea Bissau, Santo Tome e Principe and East Timor (now a colony of
Indonesia) free to go.
>
>    In Angola, the hundreds of Portuguese there were incensed. They initiated
>a wrecking spree. What they could not carry with them, they destroyed. They
>destroyed office furniture, windows, smashed type writers etc. Of the 3000
>trucks on which the transport industry was based, they destroyed 2800. 
>
	The Portuguese that returned to Portugal (many stayed) took what they
could with them. Some might even have destroyed a lot of stuff, but that was
not the main reason why so much destruction followed. 
	First of all: the revolutionary government in Portugal tried to make
the transition as smooth as possible. In the case of Angola, there was an
agreement signed in Algarve (Portugal) by the leaders of the three liberation
movements according to which national elections would be held. But the civil
war broke before that and was won by the MPLA.
	Portugal, also going through a period of political instability, played
a minor role. The few Portuguese troops left in Angola to assure the transition
were led by the revolutionary Alm. Rosa Coutinho. He openly favored the MPLA
although his influence in their military victory was reduced.
>
>    At independence UNITA and another CIA sponored outfit, the Zaire based
>FNLA revolted. UNITA immediately invited South Africa (after it was clear 
>that MPLA was well positioned to win any election) which siezed a great part
>of the country South of the capital Luanda. In response, Angola solicited 
>Cuban help. The Cubans soundly trounced and totally ejected the South Africans
>from the country.....
>
>  and thus began the situation which drags on to this day...
>
	My intention is not to deny the Portuguese culprit in the situation
that drags on to this day in Angola, but there are some aspects that are 
important to note:
	The Portuguese were also pawns of a larger political game called
"cold war". We were allowed to colonize as long as we could. Otherwise how
can one explain that were no major sanctions imposed on the NON-democratic
and facist Portuguese government and that Portugal was a member of NATO?
How can one explain that Shell, Gulf, etc. had the exploration of the Angolan
oil? These kind of questions can go on and on.
	They were also under a strong facist dictatorship that limited
political freedom and manipulated the information. I don't know how many of
you have the idea of how far an entire population can be brainwashed. I have.
At least they did not support racism. Not only because it is not deeply rooted
in the Portuguese way of being (see the social harmony in the Portuguese
colonized areas of Brazil) but also because it would deeply irritate their
western (hidden) support.
	We, Portuguese, are grateful to our African brothers that fought in
all the liberation movements against our colonial and facist government. It
was the guerilla warfare (difficult to hide, unlike the other things, from
the public opinion) that weakend the Portuguese army, divided it and led to 
the revolutionary military coup in April 25, 1974.
	In democracy the Portuguese supported the independence of their
colonies.
>
>makala
> 
Ze'

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african