the same as it would've being before decolonization...most african states, without sounding mean, were better off as colonies than independent states (comparing to otl)
I'm sure the residents of what was known as the Congo Free State who had their hands (or those of their offspring and loved ones) hacked off for failing to meet their rubber quotas would agree with you.
Right, the colonial powers
never did things like create exploitation economies based off of resource extraction that lead to all sorts of developmental issues after independence or inflamed tensions between various African tribes, peoples, and religious groups through either ignorance or deliberate divide-and-rule that caused problems after independence, or God forbid
enriched themselves and their countries at the expense of the people who were already there. Except
they did.
The Germans in ruling over the colony they referred to as Rwanda-Urundi deliberately favored the entrenched Tutsi rulers over the Hutu majority population of Rwanda because A. the Tutsis were a useful proxy and saved the Germans the trouble of establishing their own administration and B. they believed that the Tutsis, with their tall, angular forms and relatively light skin made them somehow superior to the Hutu. You can't make crap like this up, the Germans who colonized Rwanda-Urundi seriously believed that Tutsis, who are descended from Ethiopians, were basically "lost white people" who had lost their way in Africa and been diluted by contact with the "savage" Africans. Stories abounded of how the Germans took a somewhat problematic system that was already in place in terms of the Tutsis dominating the Hutu and made it even worse, there were stories of whenever a Tutsi king would stand up, he would have a Hutu servant nearby and plant the haft of his spear in the servant's foot.
Along came WWI and the German loss of its African colonies, Belgium, which then ruled the Congo, was awarded German Rwanda-Urundi as spoils of war. The Belgians proceeded to change
absolutely nothing about the problematic social order the Germans had established in Rwanda-Urundi and in fact only entrenched the divides between Hutu and Tutsi through the establishment of a pass card system, now allowing those who hated the Tutsis and wanted revenge to have
documentary evidence on those they were targeting.
Brussels kept this ugly situation from turning into a bloodbath by sheer force of arms until it departed from Rwanda in the 1950's, at which point the situation degraded and Rwanda and Burundi alike degraded into a cycle of persecution and counter-persecution and armed conflict that only recently seems to have calmed down because of the outbreak of
a genocide which claimed the lives of 800,000 Rwandans, Tutsi and otherwise, or 1 in 10 Rwandans, in less than a year.
So yes, by all means please hold to these antiquated notions that Belgian and/or German rule was better or that continued rule would have been better for the people of Rwanda, because I assure you, they both have a hand in the problems that plagued the country in the first place. Just like the British in Nigeria, or the Portuguese in Angola or Mozambique.
Really the idea that Africa was better off under colonialism is an argument founded on either ignorance or willful disregarding of the facts at hand. There was no colony that "got off easy" unless it was so unimportant to the ruling power that they never did anything with it. Take a look at a map of Kenya under British rule, how the vast majority of the land (and the best agricultural land at that) is owned by a ridiculously small white minority whose population numbers are either stagnant or declining, whereas the Kenyan blacks own even less than
Asian Indians and Malays brought in from British colonies to serve as civil servants and are confined to small, cramped plots of marginal land that more often than not had enormous problems with slums, sanitation, and poor medical care that the British or the local settler community never bothered to do anything about. And
in spite of everything seemingly arrayed against them the Kenyan black population was booming, this made a troubling situation into an intolerable one, and when faced with the alternative: starvation and massive overpopulation without adequate access to good land, the Kenyans chose to revolt against the British instead. The British have some fool notion that they handled colonialism like a clean, orderly fire drill where everyone got out of the building in record time and nobody got caught up or trapped inside. I say the Mau Mau prove otherwise.
So we've got a series of intolerable situations: a poor situation while the colonialists are still in the country, or a bubbling pot just waiting to boil over until the colonial rulers who caused the problem to leave, there is no room left for this idea that the benevolent, all-knowing white man civilized the savage Africans and that his departure destroyed Africa.