Upon further thought of the difference between Canada’s settlement trends and Ghana’s, I asked myself why? Why did Canadians form more predominant urban centers and leave the rural landscapes? Why did people stay in the rural parts of Ghana?
Mom, close your ears to this next part as it will become evident that Social Studies 9-11 were not my strongest subjects. I’m now going to take a stab at why settlement occurred differently between these two places. This is my version and best guess at possibly explaining why Canadians developed in clusters as opposed to scattered settlements across our country.
In Ghana, among the rural population there is a strong sense of culture, tradition, and home. People are well aware of their tribe as well as the area their tribe has occupied for past centuries. And it is the latter point that I believe is the root cause of a person’s attachment to their environment. Some of the communities that I have been to, have been there for hundreds of years. It has given rise to ancestral burial grounds which is a term most Canadians would be foreign to if not for anthropology books and horror movies. Generations of experiences, teachings, and investment have gone into the same land over and over. The same land that once bore fruit to the great-great grandparents of today’s generation, continue to, and will continue to bear fruit for following generations.
Through this tradition and sense of “belonging” to the land few of us can relate or empathize with, rural people and indigenous tribes have remained in their settlements while development may have flowed to other areas within their reach. Maybe this accounts for the fact that still, so many communities stay where they are, persist and persevere through the monumental challenges they are faced with, and chose to live where their ancestors had once lived.
Bringing it back to Canada, how many of us can say that we have been in the same area for the past four generations? How many of us know where our ancestors once dwelt and what they did, let alone where they were buried? I think it might be because when the European settlers first came, though they were farmers, they formed small settlements, forts, or communities. Some of those early forts continued to develop into today’s oldest cities.
As for our indigenous people, because of the conflict that existed between European settlers and the First Nations people, much of that same tradition and attachment to the land that is exhibited in Ghana’s rural people; was lost when our Natives were booted off their land and retro-actively compensated for it generations later.
This is a very simplistic explanation and view on a matter that includes many more factors. It was more of a reflection upon an observation that I made. In Canada people are not tied to the land and moving away from one’s roots is not that uncommon. In Ghana, people seem to be more tied to the land, at least among rural people, which might continue to feed the problem of low population density.
6 comments:
Interesting comments both in your posts and Spencer's comment. I'm certainly not an anthropologist either, so take this with a grain of salt.
It seems to me that comparing indigenous settlements, there would probably be similar scattering of indigenous communities regardless of place. In India we went from Delhi to Agra, a 4 hr drive and it never felt like we left one city and entered another like it would if you were driving from Vancouver to Kelowna. It was a similar situation in Japan on the bullet train and in Europe. While I don't know, I suspect that if a person was on the West Coast 400 years ago, traveling between first nations communities might have been similar.
I suspect that this distinct space between communities is unique to North America and the very distinct lines between urban and rural communities that we have. Whether this is a symptom of post-industrial revolution immigration and settlement or not, I'm not sure.
Comparing urbanization of Ghana and Canada is pretty interesting, as both seem to be initiated by colonialism. Again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that priorities of colonists were different in Ghana and Canada. European settlers in Ghana would have been faced with a harsh climate and resulting difficulties in agriculture as well as new diseases and dangers. These challenges would have made long-term settlement unattractive and I suspect that while in Ghana, Europeans were much more interested in pillaging the environment for valuable commodities than setting up a sustainable urban environment for future European settlers. I suppose the opposite case would have existed in Canada; a European-like climate would have allowed agriculture, making long-term settlement feasible and even desirable. While perhaps not the main priorities of the day, creating urban centers with healthcare, education, sources of food and water all become higher priorities when your family will be the beneficiaries of these amenities.
Well, that was longer than I wanted it to be and I bet that if you have any friends in human geography will say that they learned all that stuff in 1st year or that I'm completely wrong. Either way, hopefully it will make good fodder for some future discussion!
Another thing to consider is the insight Jared Diamond has about why people developed different over the history of human inhabitation in different regions. His main idea is that the environment (in terms of food resources) played a large roll in development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond
Interesting point about colonial power influence Spencer. I never knew that or thought of that, but it must have been a factor. I guess that’s another effect that gets overlooked when thinking of colonialism impacting the development of developing countries. With regards to Jared Diamond, I guess you are referring to his book Guns, Germs and Steel, I have not read it yet but I have it here with me. Just from what you’ve said however, echoes what Courtney told me in a private email (I don’t know why she didn’t post!!!).
Courtney mentions that in North America most cities tend to gravitate towards natural resources, most intuitively a body of water. She asks if it is “because there was once resources there and now due to climate change there is not?”. In many circumstances that would hold true, because in fact many large lakes that once served many people, have now reduced significantly in size due to climate change.
The one addition I would make to it is that you are both correct. Farmers have followed for the most part natural resources, however it is not what we typically think of because of one word in that sentence. Farmers. What came with the gradual increase in population was a heavier dependency in the soil. Farmers needed to produce more to sustain their families. This meant that soil fertility was paramount, and without the inputs available in developed nations, poor farming practices and over-use of soils rapidly led to lower soil fertility. As populations increased, farmers could no longer leave parts of land fallow (idle) for as long and thus fertility gradually declined.
Thus with farming as a livelihood, one of the main priorities was land and soil fertility. This reason contributes to why farmers scattered and why they still continue to today. We don’t think of it often, but agriculture in Canada is very input intensive (fertilizers and pesticides) and has allowed us to combat decreasing soil fertility and reap higher yields out of our land. In Ghana, it is a constant struggle to find the land that will “bear ripe fruit”, and so farmers will relocate to where survival is most likely.
Andrew I love your comment about how Ghana and Canada were both initiated by colonialism. Even as I wrote the words I didn’t draw that link myself, lol. You’ve got a pretty strong and logical argument if you ask me. It’s true that the intentions from Europeans for Africa and the New World were polar opposites. As you’ve eloquently put, the intention in Canada was to settle while in Africa it was only to extract.
The other thought I will add, is that perhaps because from the get go in Canada a government was set up. To some degree that guided settlement and controlled scatter. Initiatives such as “Keeping the West White” (I apologize if I messed that up) definitely drove people to settle differently on the west side of Canada than if they were free to settle anywhere.
On the flip side, with a lack of government, or corrupt one in many cases, I don’t think settlement or planning was on the agenda. Thus people settled where they chose. Throw in civil war, slave capturing, and tribal conflict; and scattered populations seems like more a survival tactic.
Sorry that was so long, but some great comments. Keep ‘em coming guys because it is nice to discuss these issues with people. In my household, the discussion is a little different than human geography explanations.
Hey Nick,
I've noticed the same thing driving past small rural settlements spread throughout the 20 Districts in Northern Region here. The one thing I do question though is that I got the impression that the rural life situration here is somewhat static from your post, and I'm not sure it is.
With over half the world living in cities now, I think Ghana is experiencing a similar trend. Some people exhibit strong cultural ties to the land, but often if money were no object they would send their children to school in the big city. This eventually leads to urban migration, however I do notice that on school breaks the children return to help farm in the village, and money is always coming home to maintain the family farm once they've graduated and are working in the city. With over 70% of people in northern region making a livelihood out of agriculture, the village farm seems to me to be a relatively secure investment (barring floods, droughts, disease, market stability etc.). So despite the deceptive lure of lucritive opportunities waiting in citites, one thing Ghanaians know a lot about is farming, so it's a safety net and a pension fund where the government systems are lacking. I've heard of people "retiring" by returning to the village to farm thereby maintaining the workforce at home while the younger generation moves to the cities. Although I'm not sure how strong that trend of moving to the village to retire is.
I think as economic growth presses forward we're likely to see less people living in rural areas in Ghana, as we have in other places - which is worisome because as Shumacher also states, cities survive off the productivity of rural areas, and thus some sort of balanace is essential. How do you make rural life more attractive?
Just my thoughts, likely to change over the course of this year, so I wouldn't bet the farm on them ;)
-Jen
Hey Jen, thanks for the post. I agree with you when you say that the rural life is not static. One thing I really liked about what you brought up is that the farm is a secure investment. Counter-intuitive to me, seeing as floods, epidemics killing off animals, droughts, increasing costs of inputs; all seem to be disincentives to farming. But you’re quite right when you say that there is opportunity in the rural life.
I know of one man who is now retired after making his living in the city, and he has now returned to farming. He owns several farms and actually employs people to work on them, and because of his financial stability he can afford the inputs and tractor costs that considerably increase your yield. The only difference is that he has that financial stability to go back and invest in the field. It seems to me that to make your living out of the farm is pretty difficult. But once you have made your living, going back to invest in the farm is a very sure thing.
The other thing I’ve learned that definitely ties into what you are saying, is what my co-worker told me. Because the government pays such a meagre salary to its employees (2/3 my stipend as a volunteer!!!!) he actually farms as he works for the government! Crazy I know. I was talking to him about how he manages to survive off that salary and he says that every year he plants at least two acres. On a weekend here or there, he will go with his children and plant, weed, or whatever the case be. Though this he is able to produce 80% of all the food his family needs for the year. Thus he avoids the spike in food prices in the latter part of the dry season when demand is high.
A balance is definitely needed, otherwise it will make Ghana only further dependent on foreign incoming goods, except now perhaps the most essential good, food. I don’t know how to make rural life more attractive, maybe somebody else can answer that question. Lol.
Thanks for the comment, and your puns are always appreciated.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment