World coins chat: Gambia

6 posts
The Gambia is a small country in western Africa surrounded by Senegal and the Atlantic Ocean. Its territory is a narrow strip of land around the Gambia River.

Present-day Gambia was visited by Arab traders already in medieval times. From the 15th century Portuguese traders began to explore the area. The British and French rivalled frequently over control of the West African coast, with the French concentrating around the Senegal River and the British around the Gambia River. By the 19th century, the British had established the Gambia Protectorate separately from Sierra Leone. The British and French reached a border agreement and despite British interest to swap The Gambia for another French territory such as the Niger Colony it always stayed British.

Independence was granted in 1965, with President Jawara ruling the country in a stable manner until he was ousted by Yahya Jammeh in 1994. Jammeh has been reelected a couple of times and is still president today. The Gambia became a republic within the Commonwealth in 1970. Today, groundnuts and tourism are its main industries. It is a popular destination for middle-aged European women.

The Gambia used British homeland currency until adopting the British West African Pound in 1907. It was the last territory to keep the BWA£ until the Gambian Pound was introduced in 1966. Unusual denominations of 4 and 8 Shillings were struck for this currency, but this was in preparation for decimalising into the Dalasi in 1971 for 5 Dalasi per Pound or 4 Shillings per Dalasi. A Dalasi is subdivided in 100 Bututs.

At its inception the Dalasi was worth around $0.50, but by 2015 this has dropped to $0.025. Current coins in circulation therefore have pretty low purchasing power.

Gambian Pound coins are quite rare and relatively valuable for post-WW2 non-precious metal coins. Gambian Dalasi coins are relatively easy to find despite the small population using them. The first series depict President Jawara, the second series the national coat of arms.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/gambie-1.html
Boy, you are really knocking these out. I can't keep up with you.  8.

I find Africa to be the toughest modern history to follow of all the continents because of the incredible African political instability. For instance, the Congo region started as the Congo Free State; then it became the Belgian Congo, then the Republic of the Congo; next came the Democratic Republic of the Congo; followed by Zaire. And just when I was getting used to saying Zaire, the country the country is now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo again!            
When Europeans finalised the conquest of Africa in 1885, most Africans were pretty much living in the stone age. In just 3 to 4 generations the Europeans first exploited them and subsequently tried to prepare them for modern statehood in just 15 years after WW2. The same process in Europe took more than 2000 years. No wonder it all became a fine mess after the colonial administrations were slowly disbanded after decolonisation. Most African countries are not administered anymore, but just ruled by autocratic exploiters that live day by day until the next dictator seizes power.

A couple of early post-colonial leaders were good statesmen, often educated by renowned European institutes, but a lot of their successors were brutal military leaders. It looks like the British were the most productive colonial administrators, as the infrastructure and political traditions of former British African colonies on average outperforms the others. Maybe it's just the advantage of the English language in international trade, but I think there's more to it in a certain tradition in governance. Especially the former Italian and Portuguese colonies became failed states. The Belgian and French legacies look more like "arrangist" corrupt political cultures.

One other aspect is of course the arbitrary land borders set by European powers. Just look at The Gambia, which shares many ethnicities with Senegal. The two countries were loosely united as Senegambia in the 1980's, but Gambia left it in 1989. Other border failures are those of Sudan. It would have been better if the British had ceded the Arab part to Egypt in 1956, with Darfur joining Chad and Equatoria (South Sudan) joining Uganda. Similar troubles exist in eastern Congo and Rwanda with many shared ethnicities.
Quote: jokinenWhen Europeans finalised the conquest of Africa in 1885, most Africans were pretty much living in the stone age. In just 3 to 4 generations the Europeans first exploited them and subsequently tried to prepare them for modern statehood in just 15 years after WW2. The same process in Europe took more than 2000 years. No wonder it all became a fine mess after the colonial administrations were slowly disbanded after decolonisation. Most African countries are not administered anymore, but just ruled by autocratic exploiters that live day by day until the next dictator seizes power.

A couple of early post-colonial leaders were good statesmen, often educated by renowned European institutes, but a lot of their successors were brutal military leaders. It looks like the British were the most productive colonial administrators, as the infrastructure and political traditions of former British African colonies on average outperforms the others. Maybe it's just the advantage of the English language in international trade, but I think there's more to it in a certain tradition in governance. Especially the former Italian and Portuguese colonies became failed states. The Belgian and French legacies look more like "arrangist" corrupt political cultures.

One other aspect is of course the arbitrary land borders set by European powers. Just look at The Gambia, which shares many ethnicities with Senegal. The two countries were loosely united as Senegambia in the 1980's, but Gambia left it in 1989. Other border failures are those of Sudan. It would have been better if the British had ceded the Arab part to Egypt in 1956, with Darfur joining Chad and Equatoria (South Sudan) joining Uganda. Similar troubles exist in eastern Congo and Rwanda with many shared ethnicities.
I totally agree with that assessment.
Quote: jokinenWhen Europeans finalised the conquest of Africa in 1885, most Africans were pretty much living in the stone age. In just 3 to 4 generations the Europeans first exploited them and subsequently tried to prepare them for modern statehood in just 15 years after WW2. The same process in Europe took more than 2000 years. No wonder it all became a fine mess after the colonial administrations were slowly disbanded after decolonisation. Most African countries are not administered anymore, but just ruled by autocratic exploiters that live day by day until the next dictator seizes power.

A couple of early post-colonial leaders were good statesmen, often educated by renowned European institutes, but a lot of their successors were brutal military leaders. It looks like the British were the most productive colonial administrators, as the infrastructure and political traditions of former British African colonies on average outperforms the others. Maybe it's just the advantage of the English language in international trade, but I think there's more to it in a certain tradition in governance. Especially the former Italian and Portuguese colonies became failed states. The Belgian and French legacies look more like "arrangist" corrupt political cultures.

One other aspect is of course the arbitrary land borders set by European powers. Just look at The Gambia, which shares many ethnicities with Senegal. The two countries were loosely united as Senegambia in the 1980's, but Gambia left it in 1989. Other border failures are those of Sudan. It would have been better if the British had ceded the Arab part to Egypt in 1956, with Darfur joining Chad and Equatoria (South Sudan) joining Uganda. Similar troubles exist in eastern Congo and Rwanda with many shared ethnicities.
Well, I disagree with your assessment in a couple of points. At the time of their independence both Luanda (in Angola) and Lourenço Marques (today Maputo in Mozambique) were the most modern cities of Sub-Saharan Africa (not counting South African cities, obviously).

While the British planned their colonies' independence, which was made, in several cases, gradually, in the Portuguese case they were rushed after the 1974 coup d'etat. All the qualified / educated people, both black and white, prefered to flee before the, quite previsible, civil war unraveled. There was practically no one left with any kind of useful technical or managerial skills, this situation, in conjunction with the civil war, (and, of course, the brutal communist regimes) effectively crippled those countries for the following decades.
You are absolutely right Joaquim. The failure of formerly Portuguese African nations had indeed a quite different background than the others, as you describe well.

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 05:52.