If Africa wasn't Colonized? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By R_G
Of course history dictates this was inevitable, but let's assume for whatever reasons, colonization does not occur at least when it did and most of Africa maintains independence from Europe.

Ashanti Kingdom for reference.

Is Africa in a better state or worse?
Worse. Colonization only opened up Africa for the exploitation of its resources by the colonists. Little was done to actually help the people.
Being a British protectorate would not have made much difference for the Kingdom of Ashanti, which still exists within Ghana under King Osei Tutu II. When Kuwait became a protectorate in 1899, Britain provided naval protection in return for allowing London to control its foreign affairs and some weak states in the Third World benefited from forging alliances with European powers. Colonisation did not automatically mean the destruction of indigenous cultures and Britain's indirect rule was beneficial for tribal rulers in Africa as they were offered something in return to compensate for the loss of national sovereignty. Three chiefs and three other Africans were added to the Legislative Council of present-day Ghana and many chiefs were rewarded with honours, decorations, and knighthood by government commissioners, thus guaranteeing their loyalty to Britain.
If Africa wasn't Colonized?

It would had been much better, today. Colonization is not the only way, a country can embrace new ideas regarding Economy or Polity.
My opinion is due to the geography of the continent and the tribal conflicts that to this day remain unresolved, Africa would rot.

The difference to me would have been greater amount of natural resources today and less of a slave trade, although I think it would still have happened somewhat as it did.
European contact would still have massively changed the face of Africa. Trade with advanced societies with the availability of guns. A lot of North America was massively changed well west of the whiteman, beaverskin fever meant wars for control of hunting grounds and use of firearms, a radical restructure of the societal structure well in advance of white settlement of areas.
Africa would be much better without imperialism.

Tribal conflict, it's no coincidence, is most violent where the Europeans were most interested in social engineering and whatnot. That is to say, the strip from what was German East Africa (where Belgium and Germany separated the Hutu and Tutsi into camps based upon material wealth and spirituality); on West to Belgian Congo (the crimes in which are notorious).

Regardless, even in other areas, the imperialists come in, kill the leaders, rape the children, and systematically impose alien values upon a population that has never had it. With it comes new forms of hierarchies based upon abstractions drawn up in European boarding rooms instead of actual reality.

To do this for centuries and then step back and shake your head for Africans because sixty years later everything isn't caught up with much smaller places that were interfered with much less is the height of ignorance.
There's no hope for Africa - they still believe in magic spells, child possession and witchdoctors fcs! In the 21st century? Image
mikema63 wrote:Oily, Oily, Oily. Don't be racist.

Not approving of certain cultural practices isn't racism.
It would have been better off.

They would still have the tribal divides and crappy culture but the outside world brough many harmful things. Overall this screwed the development.

Like if you went back to dark age Europe, gave one tribe (say the Ostrogoths) AK47's, told them they were the master race and then let rip. It only going to end in tears.
Too hard to generalize. In some places the impact was clearly negative, as where there was democide (Congo, Namibia). I think where the imperial rule was lighter, more in tune with local custom and elites, and more orderly, the impact was more positive (perhaps Morocco, Senegal, Kenya). Ironically, the most positive contribution (massive improvement in health, reduction in infant mortality) is also what has led to the most destabilizing factor: massive population explosion. Without colonialism, most of Africa would probably have performed like Ethiopia or Afghanistan did perform.

Like if you went back to dark age Europe, gave one tribe (say the Ostrogoths) AK47's, told them they were the master race and then let rip. It only going to end in tears.

This is basically what still happens in Chad.
I take it this topic is more specifically referring to blacks in Sub-Saharan Africa, but I would just put forward that Libya (pre-2011, obviously) is the perfect example of an African state which inherited very little positive attributes from its colonial experience, emerged from it as one of the still most impoverished and backward places on the planet, and with a determined political class with a vision unrestrained from exercising the necessary political power nationwide, harnessed the country's resources to effect a level of almost unprecedented development and advances for an African nation.

Ombrageux wrote:Without colonialism, most of Africa would probably have performed like Ethiopia or Afghanistan did perform.

Ever since the famine really kicked up in Ethiopia, Westerners associate the country immediately with images of starving children with swollen bellies on their television sets, but to put things in perspective, Ethiopia in the grand scheme of things in African history actually performed pretty well. The Abyssinian Empire was the last and only state in Africa to maintain its independence until its conquest by Fascist Italy in the 30's, it beat the Italians in the First Italo-Abyssinian War and thus was not only one of the only African powers to beat a European power, but one of the only non-white peoples anywhere to effectively check European advances in the modern era until the Russo-Japanese War.

It remained fairly influential post-war and even with the fall of the monarchy and advent of the communist regime, had a formidable military machine at its disposal. It's only fairly recently that "Ethiopia" has become a byword for poverty, poor administration, and chaos.
The important point here is that still in this day income that goes outside of Africa because of the vast amounts of capital owned by non Africans (mostly west) in Africa is more than three times the aid that Africa receives. The economical colonization never really stopped.

International capitalism in all its glory at work again.
fuser wrote:International capitalism in all its glory at work again.

What worries me most is the displacement of small landholders by land-grabbing Western or Chinese corporations. Many small farmers just farm the land without any formal title to it. It's so easy for the corrupt political elite to sign it over to foreigner corporations.

Treasury Sanctions Individuals for Undermining Ho[…]

In the case you're referring to, it might just be[…]

Election 2020

@Beren , I would say that the way the polls are n[…]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

@JohnRawls Have you considered that Lebanon a[…]