Unlike the Congo, where the rubber only needed to be brought by hand to the river to be shipped to market, in South Africa, the gold and diamonds required massive infrastructure buildups that supported local economies. The mineral revolution in northern South Africa resulted in an influx of workers to the Transvaal to work in the mines. Moving the ore required rail lines to be built to the sea. The sale of the ore generated money to be paid out to the workers. The workers then used that money to pay for food, housing, and medical care, resulting in the build up of towns around the mine and a division of labor that allowed the local economy to industrialize and prosper. In this way, the colonization of South Africa was a net benefit to the locals (in comparison to many other extractive exploitive economies), as they gained infrastructure and development. This is a result of the mineral wealth requiring industrial improvements to be extracted and being colonized by the British, two legacies which have resulted in South Africa’s current position atop the economic and development pyramid of African …show more content…
Locals were displaced from prime land as settlers moved in to farm and establish homestead, which created significant animosity between the French and the newly formed permanent Arab underclass. Muslims were denied citizenship and were marginalized, opening the country up for violent revolution in the 1950’s. The settler colony system created infrastructure, but the infrastructure was intended for the white settlers and created systematic inequality between the natives and the Europeans. This occurred in South Africa, but at a lesser scale than occurred in