Africa been colonized longer

Hercules

Banned
If African countries been colonized much longer would it been better like South Africa or worse then it would've been. An example is Ethiopia a poor country but never been colonised. South Africa run by whites since 1990,s what's your opinion
 

Anchises

Banned
If African countries been colonized much longer would it been better like South Africa or worse then it would've been. An example is Ethiopia a poor country but never been colonised. South Africa run by whites since 1990,s what's your opinion

Depends on how this hypothetical longer colonization is happening.

If it is brutal oppression for a longer time the situation is going to be worse.

If the colonial powers are trying to manage an orderly withdrawal and a phased transition of power it might be better.
 

Hercules

Banned
Depends on how this hypothetical longer colonization is happening.

If it is brutal oppression for a longer time the situation is going to be worse.

If the colonial powers are trying to manage an orderly withdrawal and a phased transition of power it might be better.
An example of this would be the Congo Belgium did a genocide on millions of Africans and 100 years later it's one of the most dangerous and poverty strucken country's in the world. But egypt has never been afflicted in any harm were given independence atter world war 1 1922
Is most developd country in continent. So there are more factors. But why is continent of Africa the poorest while other parts of the world had been colonized like India and Hong Kong
 
Depends on how this hypothetical longer colonization is happening.

If it is brutal oppression for a longer time the situation is going to be worse.

If the colonial powers are trying to manage an orderly withdrawal and a phased transition of power it might be better.

I think it's also a relevant question of when the extra period is: namely, is Africa colonized earlier or is it a matter of decolonization happening later. In the former case, itd require a more client-state/indirect semi-self rule structure that would leave the region with better relations, tribal borders, and a deeper class of domestic leaders/administrators to ease into independence. Though likely less economically developed and with fewer urban centers by the end of it, that's probably a net posative
 

Hercules

Banned
I think it's also a relevant question of when the extra period is: namely, is Africa colonized earlier or is it a matter of decolonization happening later. In the former case, itd require a more client-state/indirect semi-self rule structure that would leave the region with better relations, tribal borders, and a deeper class of domestic leaders/administrators to ease into independence. Though likely less economically developed and with fewer urban centers by the end of it, that's probably a net posative
South Africa went through aparthied and it's a well developed countries compared to other countries in a Africa. Whats the key factor enabling a country that has been totally dependent on it colonised then become a first world country. While Ethiopia never experienced coloniasm in a long expeneded time it's one of the poorest countries in world with a gdp per capital of 700. While Honk Kong who gained it independence on 1990,s from UK is a major metropolis a booming city. So dose longer colonisation make a country better off
 
Best post
An example of this would be the Congo Belgium did a genocide on millions of Africans and 100 years later it's one of the most dangerous and poverty strucken country's in the world. But egypt has never been afflicted in any harm were given independence atter world war 1 1922
Is most developd country in continent. So there are more factors. But why is continent of Africa the poorest while other parts of the world had been colonized like India and Hong Kong
Because African states had no foundation to rest their new government on after colonial administrators left. In the Americas there were a powerful group of creoles and settlers who stayed in power after the European officials and soldiers withdrew. India, Egypt, and China had pre-European systems of administration and civil services, and these took over when the Europeans left. In most of Africa, however, there was no creole class and the rudimentary administrative structure that had already existed was swept away by colonization. Without a base of power for the new indigenous governments to function with, authority devolved to local organizations like tribes and clans. The white settler class in Rhodesia and South Africa tried to gain power itself (like in the Americas), but they were too outnumbered by the indigenous population, and by the 20th century nationalism had become a more potent worldwide force. Both were forced to hand power over to native governments that had the problems mentioned above.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Africans are somehow intrinsically worse at government than Europeans, since as I explained the European colonists destroyed their existing institutions.
 

Hercules

Banned
Because African states had no foundation to rest their new government on after colonial administrators left. In the Americas there were a powerful group of creoles and settlers who stayed in power after the European officials and soldiers withdrew. India, Egypt, and China had pre-European systems of administration and civil services, and these took over when the Europeans left. In most of Africa, however, there was no creole class and the rudimentary administrative structure that had already existed was swept away by colonization. Without a base of power for the new indigenous governments to function with, authority devolved to local organizations like tribes and clans. The white settler class in Rhodesia and South Africa tried to gain power itself (like in the Americas), but they were too outnumbered by the indigenous population, and by the 20th century nationalism had become a more potent worldwide force. Both were forced to hand power over to native governments that had the problems mentioned above.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Africans are somehow intrinsically worse at government than Europeans, since as I explained the European colonists destroyed their existing institutions.
If they had followed a better form of government. It wouldn't had been like this thx for the explanation I'm new here nice to meet you
 
South Africa went through aparthied and it's a well developed countries compared to other countries in a Africa. Whats the key factor enabling a country that has been totally dependent on it colonised then become a first world country. While Ethiopia never experienced coloniasm in a long expeneded time it's one of the poorest countries in world with a gdp per capital of 700. While Honk Kong who gained it independence on 1990,s from UK is a major metropolis a booming city. So dose longer colonisation make a country better off

Well, there are a number of factors, and for many of them you run into the chicken and the egg problem. For example, the interior of the Congo jungle is geographically alot less suitable for mass agriculture and development of widespread polities (Thick foliage, lots of tempermental and hard to navigate rivers and pestulent swamps, broken up by highlands, and no coast to provide alternate paths) compared to coastal South Africa or the Nile river valley. That makes it easier to establish and maintain net posative systems (ones that will last) in the later than the former, so you get as Kolchak pointed out more robust native power structures, greater economic productivity, ect. that lead to wealthier and "better" societies. Of course, that also makes that region more attractive to potential colonizers,so they stay there longer, invest more, have less of an absolute advantage over and ability to completely displace local authority profitably, ect. which compounds the relative advantage.
 

Hercules

Banned
Well, there are a number of factors, and for many of them you run into the chicken and the egg problem. For example, the interior of the Congo jungle is geographically alot less suitable for mass agriculture and development of widespread polities (Thick foliage, lots of tempermental and hard to navigate rivers and pestulent swamps, broken up by highlands, and no coast to provide alternate paths) compared to coastal South Africa or the Nile river valley. That makes it easier to establish and maintain net posative systems (ones that will last) in the later than the former, so you get as Kolchak pointed out more robust native power structures, greater economic productivity, ect. that lead to wealthier and "better" societies. Of course, that also makes that region more attractive to potential colonizers,so they stay there longer, invest more, have less of an absolute advantage over and ability to completely displace local authority profitably, ect. which compounds the relative advantage.
Most major citys are found near coast like Dubai and Cairo. Earliest civilizations we're founded near rivers. Then Ethiopia it has a river a tributary to the Nile river but it's landlocked and had a pre existing govt so explain why is it the most poorest country with the world. Is it lack of resources or population or not having technology that colonialism brought to African states like South Africa.
 
Most major citys are found near coast like Dubai and Cairo. Earliest civilizations we're founded near rivers. Then Ethiopia it has a river a tributary to the Nile river but it's landlocked and had a pre existing govt so explain why is it the most poorest country with the world. Is it lack of resources or population or not having technology that colonialism brought to African states like South Africa.

Actually, Ethiopia isent the poorest country in the world. There's 21 counteries with a lower per-capita income... virtually all of whom were colonized

https://www.businessinsider.com/poorest-countries-in-the-world-2018-5#24-mali-917-5
 
Cairo

If Japan was never colonized and look at it today why didn't Ethiopia and Liberia have the same equal opportunity as Japan
Japan was wealthier and benefited from contact with China, which allowed them to westernize. Also more people and natural resources are in Japan. You can't build a wealthy state with the meagre resources of Liberia.
 
Cairo

If Japan was never colonized and look at it today why didn't Ethiopia and Liberia have the same equal opportunity as Japan

Japan is the exception, not the rule. "Pulling a Meji" is a trope for the very reason that it required a very specific set of circumstances... not the least of which is that there'd been a unified Japanese identity and internal economic and political integration for over a millennium. The union of Ethiopia was recent and shallow on both those fronts, same with Liberia
 

Hercules

Banned
So a homogeneous and populated country with the right type of govt so why is Somalia poor then if it's homogeneous and poulated with natural recoures
 
So a homogeneous and populated country with the right type of govt so why is Somalia poor then if it's homogeneous and poulated with natural recoures
It's not. Parts of Somalia are trying to break away today. And its main natural resource was fish, which is gone because of overfishing. Besides, as FillyofDelphi pointed out, "pulling a Meiji" isn't something every country can do. Pre-colonial Somalia was a group of strong sultanates with backing from the Ottomans that might have held some promise for at least doing what Ethiopia did IOTL, but they were obliterated by Europeans.
 
So a homogeneous and populated country with the right type of govt so why is Somalia poor then if it's homogeneous and poulated with natural recoures

Homogenaity is a very... slippery definition. It's almost entirely a subjective, self-determined thing rather than any objective matter: for example, people of African dissent in the US largely don't view eachother as part of a seperate group, despite that if we were to trace their family's back to Africa and they came from groups who would certainly today not identify nearly as closely with one another. The Japanese, even if the Daiymos in many cases made the country not entirely unified, still fundimentally saw one another as part of the same people, blessed by the same gods and under the authority of the same emperor (Part of the same cultural zeitgeist), while as Kolchak pointed out Somalia never had that level of broad unified identification. Indeed, in their case the strength of the individual Sultantes (at least relative to the other powers in the area) was a disadvantage in that it allowed local authorities to remain independent, thus not leading to either outside opression (which might have driven them together in resistance/attempts to accomidate, or being forced into a closer identification/structure via Imperial attempts to simpilify managing them) or lead to one getting a decisive enough advantage to conquer its neighbors and start a state-building projection which would facilitate closer union.
 

Hercules

Banned
Homogenaity is a very... slippery definition. It's almost entirely a subjective, self-determined thing rather than any objective matter: for example, people of African dissent in the US largely don't view eachother as part of a seperate group, despite that if we were to trace their family's back to Africa and they came from groups who would certainly today not identify nearly as closely with one another. The Japanese, even if the Daiymos in many cases made the country not entirely unified, still fundimentally saw one another as part of the same people, blessed by the same gods and under the authority of the same emperor (Part of the same cultural zeitgeist), while as Kolchak pointed out Somalia never had that level of broad unified identification. Indeed, in their case the strength of the individual Sultantes (at least relative to the other powers in the area) was a disadvantage in that it allowed local authorities to remain independent, thus not leading to either outside opression (which might have driven them together in resistance/attempts to accomidate, or being forced into a closer identification/structure via Imperial attempts to simpilify managing them) or lead to one getting a decisive enough advantage to conquer its neighbors and start a state-building projection which would facilitate closer union.
America was a country found by immigrants with different values and beliefs but not a homogeneous country it has the strongest military and with one of the most richest economies in the world yet what makes it more developed then other countries. Is it geographical or natural resources or the people who live in the country .Most productive societies in the world are multicultural like Baghdad during the Islamic golden age and ancient Rome was a multicultural society. Middel east has one of the most highest per capita per peson because of all it's oil. Singapore and Panama
Make money based on thier geographical location and trade. What makes Country better off then others especially sub sharan Africa.
So many countries in Africa have these characteristics and recoures becoming rich. An example is Djibouti it lies between a important strait and can make a lot of money from it yet it is poor
 

Hercules

Banned
It's not. Parts of Somalia are trying to break away today. And its main natural resource was fish, which is gone because of overfishing. Besides, as FillyofDelphi pointed out, "pulling a Meiji" isn't something every country can do. Pre-colonial Somalia was a group of strong sultanates with backing from the Ottomans that might have held some promise for at least doing what Ethiopia did IOTL, but they were obliterated by Europeans.
How did Japanese defeat it's colonisers then
 
How did Japanese defeat it's colonisers then
I think that colonizing a big county like that is hard when it is unified like Japan was. India was colonized because it had no central authority after the Mughals fell, and the Europeans moved in. China and Turkey were disunited, but had a lot of territory to bleed while they tried to westernize, so they succeeded in westernizing eventually even though they weren't ready for it like Japan. Pre-Spanish Mexico and Peru were unified (okay Mexico was only superficially unified), but got knockout blows from plague because they were new worlders and, let's face it, they were really unlucky militarily. I'm not an expert on this though.
 
Top