A Little Help...

[Thermopylae]

Not too sure where to put this.

If any of you have noticed, I have taken a bit of a break from These Hills Sing of Saxon Kings, but I have the itch to really finish it off. But there is one question bothering me.

It involves Africa.

This is a question concerning OTL, and exactly how the answer pertains to THSSK.

How exactly did the European powers, as they were pulling out, go about dividing Africa? Was it a purely arbitrary drawing of lines, or was there some sort of socio-cultural/nationalistic reason for drawing the borders the way they were?

I know, it's a really, really broad question, and I don't expect a clear answer. But the way I see it, the collective ideas of those who care to comment might be able to serve as a basic template.

[Haggis]

Okay, from everything I've looked at its a two-fold thing. In some areas, like the Congo, they just went with most of the colonial borders. Officially the Atlantic Charter says that decolonization must be done in a way that is pleasing to the people that will live there, and in quite a few areas the colonizers tried to carry this out as much as possible.

Really though one has to ask why decolonization is going on. One of the major causes of decolonization in OTL was urbanization in Africa itself. Suddnely people could read and organize things like underground newspapers.

If you want to rule a colony then you either have to keep the natives in the dark or populate it with your own people, just in a continuous stream so as to control the culture of the colony.

In the colonies with larger literate and urban populations the borders were usually adjusted to their satisfaction.

[Wendell]

The borders for postcolonial Africa IOTL were exactly those most recently imposed by the colonizers. After independence, the OAU made it policy to promote national frontiers as they stoold then.

Cameroon, Ethiopia Ghana, Somalia, and Comoros were exceptions to the approach taken by the powers.

In Cameroon, the southern portion of British Cameroons joined French Cameroun, becoming the current country. Northern British Cameroons went to Nigeria.

Ethiopia, upon restoration after World War II acquired Eritrea with stipulations. Eritrea had been an Italian colony even before the Second Italo-Abyssinian War.

Ghana was the British Gold Coast colony. When it gained independence, it recieved British Togoland.

Somalia resulted from a merger of the British and Italian Somaliland colonies. Frenc Somaliland later gained independence after some name changes as Djibouti.

Comoros gained its independence via referendum, As a result of the referendum, one Comorian island, Mayotte, opted to remain French. Mayotte remains French to this day.

[Thermopylae]

Originally Posted by Haggis

In some areas, like the Congo, they just went with most of the colonial borders. Officially the Atlantic Charter says that decolonization must be done in a way that is pleasing to the people that will live there, and in quite a few areas the colonizers tried to carry this out as much as possible.

But what of tribal borders? Many of Africa's problems today arise from ethnic tensions between these various tribes. Now, to me, it seems as though these were paid little mind when determining how Africa was to be divvied up.

Really though one has to ask why decolonization is going on. One of the major causes of decolonization in OTL was urbanization in Africa itself. Suddnely people could read and organize things like underground newspapers.

That's an interesing point you make there, and it seemsas tough oneof the biggest motivators behind the post-WWII urbanization of Africa was due to the fact that a lt of te Eat Asian resources had been cut off due to war, such as rubber from the Dutch East Indies, which meant that the means of getting the rubber had to come from Africa, which led to industry, which led to the growth of cities because that's where the jobs were.

At least, from what I understand. You seem to be the resident Africa Guru here. Is there anything particularly wrong with this summation?

In the colonies with larger literate and urban populations the borders were usually adjusted to their satisfaction.

And the rich, wealthy colonials' satisfaction centered on control of resources further afield, am I right?

Originally Posted by Wendell

The borders for postcolonial Africa IOTL were exactly those most recently imposed by the colonizers. After independence, the OAU made it policy to promote national frontiers as they stoold then.

Cameroon, Ethiopia Ghana, Somalia, and Comoros were exceptions to the approach taken by the powers.

In Cameroon, the southern portion of British Cameroons joined French Cameroun, becoming the current country. Northern British Cameroons went to Nigeria.

Ethiopia, upon restoration after World War II acquired Eritrea with stipulations. Eritrea had been an Italian colony even before the Second Italo-Abyssinian War.

Ghana was the British Gold Coast colony. When it gained independence, it recieved British Togoland.

Somalia resulted from a merger of the British and Italian Somaliland colonies. Frenc Somaliland later gained independence after some name changes as Djibouti.

Comoros gained its independence via referendum, As a result of the referendum, one Comorian island, Mayotte, opted to remain French. Mayotte remains French to this day.

Quite useful, thank you!

[Wendell]

One more thing that is essential to understanding southern Africa is the British policy of NIBMAR.

No Independence Before Majority African Rule. Needless to say, this did not apply to Egypt, Sudan, and South Africa.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

But what of tribal borders? Many of Africa's problems today arise from ethnic tensions between these various tribes. Now, to me, it seems as though these were paid little mind when determining how Africa was to be divvied up.

[Grumpy European] Black people will be better in the states that we decide for them. [/Grumpy European]

That's an interesing point you make there, and it seems as tough oneof the biggest motivators behind the post-WWII urbanization of Africa was due to the fact that alot of the East Asian resources had been cut off due to war, such as rubber from the Dutch East Indies, which meant that the means of getting the rubber had to come from Africa, which led to industry, which led to the growth of cities because that's where the jobs were.

At least, from what I understand. You seem to be the resident Africa Guru here. Is there anything particularly wrong with this summation?

A very good summation indeed, though industry was avoided in earlier circumstances, like the Congo, because rubber grew wild. Once the wild rubber was exhausted though everyone moved toward rubber plantations. Though by WWII there where supposed to be massive rubber plantations down in South America, which is the main reason that Leopold had his men push the Africans so hard, so that he could corner the market and make off with millions. Which he then spent on his own palaces.

And the rich, wealthy colonials' satisfaction centered on control of resources further afield, am I right?

As always, aye.

Really the best analogy I can think of it was a kind of Rape 'Em and Leave 'Em philosophy.

[Wendell]

Sadly, Africa is in such a state today that its older generation almost wishes the place was still run by Europeans. Colonization was in many ways bad for Africa, but independence has largely been a disaster in many areas as well.

[Haggis]

While true, it's kind of the fault of the Europeans themselves. Nine times out of ten it was cheaper to get the poorest tribe around to do your killing for you, or to reinforce possible negative ideas about race in your colonies.

If you go and look at Western Africa before the Europeans it was one of the most liberal and forward thinking places on Earth, the Kurukan Fuga was declaring the rights of slaves and the poor while the Magna Carta was still pointing out the rights of the nobility.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Haggis

While true, it's kind of the fault of the Europeans themselves. Nine times out of ten it was cheaper to get the poorest tribe around to do your killing for you, or to reinforce possible negative ideas about race in your colonies.

If you go and look at Western Africa before the Europeans it was one of the most liberal and forward thinking places on Earth, the Kurukan Fuga was declaring the rights of slaves and the poor while the Magna Carta was still pointing out the rights of the nobility.

The glory days of West Africa were starting to wane by 1600, despite the achievements of Mali and others.

African leaders have continually failed their states since independence in nearly every African country.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Wendell

The glory days of West Africa were starting to wane by 1600, despite the achievements of Mali and others.

African leaders have continually failed their states since independence in nearly every African country.

That's true, but too often the conquered imitate the conqueror. I know it's no excuse but I'm just saying.

Plus a lot of Africa's resources screw it over. Like Nigerian oil, the people in the Delta regions actually made more money fishing than they do living off whatever the government deigns to throw their way from oil.

Though some African governments are trying, South Africa for example.

[DuQuense]

A lot of the post independence borders were drawn in 1881 Berlin --Because they looked good on the Map- some others where drawn for Geopolitical Reasons.
That little strip at the north of German SW Africa is there to prevent the Portuguese from claiming a strip between Angola and Mozambique,
German East Africa was put where it was to prevent Britain from getting the whole east coast, and building the Cairo-Capetown RR. Something Britain fought to make up for- for the next 40 years.

[Thermopylae]

Originally Posted by Haggis

[Grumpy European] Black people will be better in the states that we decide for them. [/Grumpy European]

Ah. And the decisons of the grumpy Europeans were influenced by the aformentioned ambition of the "Europeanized" African to control valuable resources, i.e. diamonds, oil, etc.

Anything else really motivate the post-colonial division of Africa?

A very good summation indeed, though industry was avoided in earlier circumstances, like the Congo, because rubber grew wild. Once the wild rubber was exhausted though everyone moved toward rubber plantations. Though by WWII there where supposed to be massive rubber plantations down in South America, which is the main reason that Leopold had his men push the Africans so hard, so that he could corner the market and make off with millions. Which he then spent on his own palaces.

I see. So, urbanization of Africa was inevitable, however was sped along by the resource-depriving circumstances of WWII, right?

Originally Posted by DuQuense

A lot of the post independence borders were drawn in 1881 Berlin --Because they looked good on the Map- some others where drawn for Geopolitical Reasons.
That little strip at the north of German SW Africa is there to prevent the Portuguese from claiming a strip between Angola and Mozambique,
German East Africa was put where it was to prevent Britain from getting the whole east coast, and building the Cairo-Capetown RR. Something Britain fought to make up for- for the next 40 years.

I see. About the Cape-Cairo railway, exactly what made the other European power so afraid of its completion? And exactly why was it never completed (as in, was it just geography, or perhaps because such a structure would have to pass through hostile territory?)

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Haggis

That's true, but too often the conquered imitate the conqueror. I know it's no excuse but I'm just saying.

Hence the Soviet inspiration of many postcolonial leaders in Africa

Plus a lot of Africa's resources screw it over. Like Nigerian oil, the people in the Delta regions actually made more money fishing than they do living off whatever the government deigns to throw their way from oil.

The African countries choosing how they aloocate said resources.

Though some African governments are trying, South Africa for example.

Senegal, Botswana and Namibia strike me as better examples. Yes, South Africa is trying, but while plagued with violent crime (particularly against children), its government would rather focus on renaming locales

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Wendell

The African countries choosing how they aloocate said resources.

Yeah, but they still screw over their own people a good bit of the time.

Senegal, Botswana and Namibia strike me as better examples. Yes, South Africa is trying, but while plagued with violent crime (particularly against children), its government would rather focus on renaming locales

You've got me there, Namibia is taking tentative steps but in 2004 Sam Nujoma had the constitution changed just so he could run for a third term, that's a scary step, in the wrong direction, right there. Plus there's very little political opposition to SWAPO in all of Namibia, Pohamba was even picked out by Nujoma.

So that's why I didn't really say 'Hey! Look at how great Namibia is doing.' Because so far they seem fully capable of either a one party state or an actual republic.

It's up to them though.