Africa without the "Scramble for Africa"

[Valdemar II]

What would have happen to Africa if direct rule hasn't become in fashion and "informal imperialism"* had stayed in practice? POD is between 1830-1870

Europe still become the "centre" of the world, through economical, technological and military means.

Tradingpost and local areas of European direct rule and settlement still happens (Algeria, Cape, the Boer Republics etc.).

Local protectorates and vassal is also premitable.


How would Africa look today.


*control through military influence and economic dominance

[Ak-84]

N Africa was already under Euros at the time of the scramble.

A better TL, US joins in.

[Bear Flag Oligarch]

This would probably prove advantageous for Europe because they wouldn't have to spend so much administrating colonies, putting down rebellions etc. so those colonies that Europeans already possess could stay with them for much longer. This could also help with the relations between the various Great Powers because they wouldn't have as big of a competition over colonies.

[Roberto]

During the frequent technology booms that happened in the nineteenth century, some of this is bound to be passed on to the African natives, so by the turn of the century you'd see a few modernish African native states. This would probably be encouraged by the Europeans... I also expect the Boer to continue expanding north, so there might be Boer Republics right up to Congo...

[B_Munro]

Do the Europeans still shut down the Arab/Swahili east coast slave trade? If this happens, a European (British, really) control of Zanzibar and at least the coastal region of East Africa seems likely. Some of the displaced slavers and Islamic strongmen may succeed in establishing statelets in the interior: perhaps Tippu Tip [1] and his descendants continue to rule a big chunk of the Congo basin until they are overthrown in the Communist rebellion of 1976...

Bruce

[1] AKA Hamed bin Mohammed bin Juma bin Rajab bin Mohammed bin Said el Murgebi (whew!)

[DuQuense]

This is good for Africa -- Native states with Native Borders, with a history of self government.

[Thande]

It depends very much on whether a) European powers remain dominant to the present day with no world wars, b) no world wars but rising powers such as the USA and Japan or China rise to the same level as the Europeans, or c) world wars and bankrupted Europe like OTL. I tend to think the latter is actually the most interesting in this case.

There would still be a lot of bloody conflicts owing to the introduction of automatic weapons by Europeans, but as noted above I tend to think that they would not be as endemic as OTL and you would probably have a majority of functioning states defined by ethnicity, with no arbitrary borders drawn. On the other hand, most of Africa would not speak an external language and there would be few common languages, so it would remain 'the Dark Continent' in terms of being mysterious and unknowable (to the West) even if were economically more developed.

[Youdontwanttoknow]

Ethiopia suddenly looks to be in a better postion.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

N Africa was already under Euros at the time of the scramble.

A better TL, US joins in.

No it wasn't. Only Algeria. It was the French occupation of Tunis that began the scramble.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Do the Europeans still shut down the Arab/Swahili east coast slave trade? If this happens, a European (British, really) control of Zanzibar and at least the coastal region of East Africa seems likely. Some of the displaced slavers and Islamic strongmen may succeed in establishing statelets in the interior: perhaps Tippu Tip [1] and his descendants continue to rule a big chunk of the Congo basin until they are overthrown in the Communist rebellion of 1976...

Bruce

[1] AKA Hamed bin Mohammed bin Juma bin Rajab bin Mohammed bin Said el Murgebi (whew!)

I disagree. Zanzibar in OTL was a sort of British protectorate until 1885 with the Zanzibari regime gradually expanding its power inland. Slavery was a problem but a railroad into the interior could have struck it a mortal blow and replaced it with legitimate trade.

Tippu Tip, BTW, was entirely loyal to the Sayyid of Zanzibar, and only went his own way when released to do so by Bargash once the situation became hopeless for Zanzibar.
In OTL this was interrupted by the Germans, and the British were too diplomatically weak because of their occupation of Egypt to keep them out.

In a TL where things are different, for instance no Russo-Ottoman war and no Treaty of Berlin, you may see a different outcome for Tunis and Egypt - that would leave Britain free to enforce the integrity of Zanzibar and lead to a large Zanzibari empire with British influence paramount.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It depends very much on whether a) European powers remain dominant to the present day with no world wars, b) no world wars but rising powers such as the USA and Japan or China rise to the same level as the Europeans, or c) world wars and bankrupted Europe like OTL. I tend to think the latter is actually the most interesting in this case.

There would still be a lot of bloody conflicts owing to the introduction of automatic weapons by Europeans, but as noted above I tend to think that they would not be as endemic as OTL and you would probably have a majority of functioning states defined by ethnicity, with no arbitrary borders drawn. On the other hand, most of Africa would not speak an external language and there would be few common languages, so it would remain 'the Dark Continent' in terms of being mysterious and unknowable (to the West) even if were economically more developed.

States based on ethnicity is a European innovation that wasn't particularly relevant in pre-colonial Africa, at least in the larger states. For instance, Sokoto and Bornu both covered large areas with a multitude of language groups.

The problem with colonial borders were that they split up existing polities and economic units among multiple powers - for instance, Bornu ended up split between Germany, France, and Britain, and Zanzibar between Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Britain.

[Marius]

During the frequent technology booms that happened in the nineteenth century, some of this is bound to be passed on to the African natives, so by the turn of the century you'd see a few modernish African native states. This would probably be encouraged by the Europeans... I also expect the Boer to continue expanding north, so there might be Boer Republics right up to Congo...

Unlikely. The Boer population was too small to have feasible colonies stretching that far. They only had a tenuous hold over parts of the Transvaal. And the Rhodesias were settled more for business reasons by the British than any variation of "manifest destiny". You may have seen some Boer expansion into what would become Southern Rhodesia, and possibly Mozambique, but you wouldn't see formal republics there.

That said some Boer trekkers did make it as far as Kenya and Tanzania, but they were a very small minority.

[Ridwan Asher]

In a TL where things are different, for instance no Russo-Ottoman war and no Treaty of Berlin, you may see a different outcome for Tunis and Egypt - that would leave Britain free to enforce the integrity of Zanzibar and lead to a large Zanzibari empire with British influence paramount.

What would've been the case if Ottoman Empire was victorious in Russo-Ottoman War, then ?

[yourworstnightmare]

I am not sure Africa would be in a better position, we'd see African Vassal Empires getting guns from their European allies and then ruthlessly expand and crush their neighbours. We'd still end up with multi- cultural nightmares.

[Marius]

I am not sure Africa would be in a better position, we'd see African Vassal Empires getting guns from their European allies and then ruthlessly expand and crush their neighbours. We'd still end up with multi- cultural nightmares.

You have no evidence to back up this statement.

But to be fair, we all know that all darkies like doing is eating and fucking and fighting :rolleyes:

[Admiral Canaris]

Wouldn't Africa be way more primitive if there wasn't a colonial administration that built up roads, infrastructure etc? The local governments wouldn't be very interested in modernisations that upset the status quo, and likely wouldn't have the capital for major improvements. Were there even functioning states in many parts?

[Hendryk]

We'd still end up with multi- cultural nightmares.
What's nightmarish about multicultural polities? As AHP has pointed out, the larger pre-colonial African states were multiethnic.

The local governments wouldn't be very interested in modernisations that upset the status quo, and likely wouldn't have the capital for major improvements.
I agree that lack of capital would be a problem, and may lead the weaker states to a situation of chronic indebtedness and ultimately economic vassalization to the European powers (something like Latin America vis-à-vis the US). But the incentive to modernize would be there all right: any state that didn't may risk falling behind its neighbors.

[Ridwan Asher]

What's nightmarish about multicultural polities? As AHP has pointed out, the larger pre-colonial African states were multiethnic.

What's nightmarish about multicultural polities ? If they would be based upon European-invented "national principle" (aka "one ethnic per state"), oh yes they are ;)

[carlton_bach]

Wouldn't Africa be way more primitive if there wasn't a colonial administration that built up roads, infrastructure etc? The local governments wouldn't be very interested in modernisations that upset the status quo, and likely wouldn't have the capital for major improvements. Were there even functioning states in many parts?

Parts of Africa probably benefited to some degree, but they were pretty small parts. Africa in 1850 is full of states that either already were or had the potential to become modern, and modernity, especially when it's backed with tax revenues, rifles and a cash economy, has very winning ways.

It's important not to overestimate the impact of European government on much of Africa. Outside urban areas and the direct neighbourhood of railways or rivers, much of it remained much as it had been - a tribal society now subject to the incomprehensible exactions of a different kind of overlord - well into the twentieth century. Native regimes would would probably manage their government differently, but the idea of 'the guy on the big boat who hurts you if you don't do what he says' is hardly a novel invention. It matters very little if he is called a Pasha, a District Commissioner, a Hene or whatever else. Roads, railways and ports made economic sense and therefore would have happened, possibly at a slightly slower pace without the same level of access to European capital markets and forced labour. Cash crops would have spread a little slower without the ethnic cleansing of native subsistence farmers. But it probably wouldn't have made a big difference. For most Africans day in day out, some guy comes by, tells them what to do and nicks their stuff. He's black - big deal.

[Hendryk]

Outside urban areas and the direct neighbourhood of railways or rivers, much of it remained much as it had been - a tribal society now subject to the incomprehensible exactions of a different kind of overlord - well into the twentieth century.
Indeed, if you take the Central African Republic in OTL, it must have all of 50 km of paved roads, all of them in its capital Bangui. The rest of the country makes do with dirt tracks. Of course, there isn't a single railway.

[MerryPrankster]

You have no evidence to back up this statement.

But to be fair, we all know that all darkies like doing is eating and fucking and fighting :rolleyes:

Do you have evidence he's racist?

[Admiral Canaris]

I agree that lack of capital would be a problem, and may lead the weaker states to a situation of chronic indebtedness and ultimately economic vassalization to the European powers (something like Latin America vis-à-vis the US). But the incentive to modernize would be there all right: any state that didn't may risk falling behind its neighbors.

Would they not risk social upheaval if they pushed for major reforms, though? Most regimes go out of their way to avoid that. That might of course depend on the particular polity, but changes would in most cases need to be quite substantial for them to be upgraded to new levels of competitiveness (they'd need to basically build up everything from scratch - infrastructure, educational facilities, effectivised agriculture etc etc).

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Unlikely. The Boer population was too small to have feasible colonies stretching that far. They only had a tenuous hold over parts of the Transvaal. And the Rhodesias were settled more for business reasons by the British than any variation of "manifest destiny". You may have seen some Boer expansion into what would become Southern Rhodesia, and possibly Mozambique, but you wouldn't see formal republics there.

That said some Boer trekkers did make it as far as Kenya and Tanzania, but they were a very small minority.

There are issues of climate and health as well. The Congo is a miserable place for pasty northern Europeans. There is way too much nice land availalbe where the Boers actually are for them to be wandering into tropical jungles. And the intervening areas are a bit barren.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I am not sure Africa would be in a better position, we'd see African Vassal Empires getting guns from their European allies and then ruthlessly expand and crush their neighbours. We'd still end up with multi- cultural nightmares.

This is insupportable. You seem to be operating from the impression that Africa was a bunch of grass huts and loin-cloth wearing barbarians with spears before the Light of Europe Shone Upon the Darkness. There were plenty of vast multi-cultural empires that were anything but nightmarish. There is no reason to assume that there would not continue to be, and many of these would have benefitted by the synergies of exposure to capitalism, as opposed to being violently conquered with horrendous death toll.

[Leo Caesius]

It's amazing how the term "multicultural" has become a dirty word, much as "liberal" did a few years back. People accuse the Left of being Orwellian in its treatment of language, but all the evidence seems to point rightwards. I wonder what's next on the hit list?

A really interesting reference on the effects of the slave trade on these African civilizations is Allan Austin's African Muslims in Antebellum America. It's a collection of primary sources, all written by literate slaves from the region. A really engaging read.

[carlton_bach]

Would they not risk social upheaval if they pushed for major reforms, though? Most regimes go out of their way to avoid that. That might of course depend on the particular polity, but changes would in most cases need to be quite substantial for them to be upgraded to new levels of competitiveness (they'd need to basically build up everything from scratch - infrastructure, educational facilities, effectivised agriculture etc etc).

The big changes of modernisation have the advantage of being practically automatic (if you want to call that an advantage). In the nineteenth century, all over the world millions of people experienced the (often violent) disruption of their social fabric, the loss of their livelihood, the destruction of traditional patterns of life, poverty, famine and sudden deprivation of rights and dignity once believed secure. The agents of change more often than not were European colonialists, but the difference whether it was done directly or not really was gradual - the real force behind it was what we like to call 'progress'. Africa can not escape this, and this development has winners as well as losers. The Victorians believed differently, but men like Shaka Zulu and Tippu Tip were exponents of African modernity. KwaZulu would not have had too much trouble surviving as a state. Some of its neighbours - different story. But that's not unprecedented, either.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Wouldn't Africa be way more primitive if there wasn't a colonial administration that built up roads, infrastructure etc? The local governments wouldn't be very interested in modernisations that upset the status quo, and likely wouldn't have the capital for major improvements. Were there even functioning states in many parts?

No. For the most part, colonial administrations only built rail and roads for strategic purposes or to extract resources. The only places that really benefitted from colonial adminstration were settler colonies, like Algeria, Tunis, and South Africa.

Local governments were actually very interested in modernization, they just didn't really have an opportunity to implement them before they were invaded and violently destroyed.

Part of the problem was that there was a deliberate policy of withholding modern weaponry from Africa, which left African governments stuck with primitive firearms or whatever could be produced in Africa, which was of course limited. That left African states at an insurmountable technological disadvantage.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Would they not risk social upheaval if they pushed for major reforms, though? Most regimes go out of their way to avoid that. That might of course depend on the particular polity, but changes would in most cases need to be quite substantial for them to be upgraded to new levels of competitiveness (they'd need to basically build up everything from scratch - infrastructure, educational facilities, effectivised agriculture etc etc).

This depends upon the threat level. For example, Ottoman reform efforts caused immense upheaval, but were regarded as absolutely essential. Likewise Japan.

In the case of African polities, the options were modernize or face utter destruction. Most would have chosen modernization - but their options in that regard were severely limited.

For example, sleeping sickness prevented the use of livestock in most of the populated parts of Africa - that is a massive disadvantage - and the general lack of industrial resources in most of the continent was another.

Rather long-lived states like Bornu were more or less hopelessly located for purposes of modernization, so you're kind of left with North Africa and Zanzibar, all of which probably had the resources to successfully reform, e.g. build railways, etc.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The big changes of modernisation have the advantage of being practically automatic (if you want to call that an advantage). In the nineteenth century, all over the world millions of people experienced the (often violent) disruption of their social fabric, the loss of their livelihood, the destruction of traditional patterns of life, poverty, famine and sudden deprivation of rights and dignity once believed secure. The agents of change more often than not were European colonialists, but the difference whether it was done directly or not really was gradual - the real force behind it was what we like to call 'progress'. Africa can not escape this, and this development has winners as well as losers. The Victorians believed differently, but men like Shaka Zulu and Tippu Tip were exponents of African modernity. KwaZulu would not have had too much trouble surviving as a state. Some of its neighbours - different story. But that's not unprecedented, either.


I would also add that modernization also caused horrendous social upheaval in Europe - in fact probably greater than in the "Third World", and despite occurring over a much longer period - yet states still pursued it.

And also, the vast majority of European states have not survived. Just those of Germany probably outnumber all the states of Africa that have ever existed!