AHC: A Better Map of Africa
- Thread starter smjb
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
I agree to a very large extent. From a distance, greater patterns can be discerned. It even seems to be more than just a "third world" matter. The migrations of the post-colonial world (which are, among other causes, tied into the same thing you lay out here) are also causing demographic tension in the West. Similarly, socio-economic factors originating with the same post-Cold War global economic order are also causing stresses and resentment in the West. In that way, the rise of the so-called "alt-right" (in its very broadest sense) can also be identified as an exponent of a global "tribalism".
A highly interesting, yet (in my opinion) deeply unsettling development.
You know, the passive-agressive tone is really not needed. When someone posts observations about Dutch politics, it doesn't matter intrinsically whether he's Dutch or not. He may be right either way. In fact, the whole "can't see the forest for the trees"-thing often plays a role in our perceptions. May well be that the South Africans I've met suffered from that, but they do constitute a larger pool of reference than, well, just you by your lonesome. The vast majority of South Africans deeply worried about that country's future that I've met are not "my mates" (poor mates or otherwise), but highly capable professionals in a variety of fields, who see nothing but a bleak future for their families in South Africa. And it's not some particular group of racists or something: it's a collection of mostly unconnected people I've met over the years, who express the same concerns with a noticable (in fact, alarming) frequency. The fact that those people, typically far from anything right-wing, are all too often implying that the country is worse off now than "back in the day" is in itself an indication that something is wrong. Dismissing these people as being somehow inherently bad is too easy.
Coming back to the central topic (namely the map): if you have up-to-date and in-depth sources as to who lives where, speaking which language, I'll be nothing but grateful if you provide them-- and if the data I've been able to find is inaccurate, I'll alter my map without hesitation to conform to actual realities.
However, I must stress again that this whole "don't lecture me about my country"-attitude that you're adopting is rather unpleasant, and (what's worse) a fallacy. Distance can, in fact, lend perspective that proximity renders impossible. That may or may not be the case here (I have made no definitive claim on that, merely expressed a view based on my real-life experience and on data-gathering), but your apparent assumption that foreigners cannot have an opinion more accurate than yours is not one I'll accept. I must honestly say that if that's the route you're going here, I'll be quite happy not to discuss anything with you ever again.
Best, of course, would be for you to just make your own map of Africa, and show us your thoughts on the matter.
Skallagrim
Banned
Man, even Belgium doesn't function properly, and that's pretty much the tamest country there is. Once in a while, you get a Switzerland, sure. But how often is that? Multicultural states don't work in most cases (see: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, a whole boatload of ethno-linguistic separatist/autonomist movements, including such areas a Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia...)
In Africa, where tribalism is much more prevalent, animosities are often much more acute/violent, and awful colonialist borders have caused deep grievances, the dream of well-functioning multicultural countries is a recipe for disaster. It gives you Touaregs trying to break off from Mali. It gives you horrid sectarian warfare in Nigeria. It gives you entire villages being torched in Chad, and fanatics killing people by the droves in the Central African Republic. It gives you a secession war in South Sudan, and the saughtering of the Fur people in the west of that same coutry (i.e. Darfur). It gives you the christian Oromo seeking autonomy in Ethiopia on an ethnic basis, but at the same time fighting their islamic kinsmen to their east in a bitter religious struggle.
Must I go on? The disasters of enforced(!) multiculturalism are without number. So divide things up. And when the dust settles, those who want to voluntarily(!) unite will do so of their own accord. I would not stop them.
I was under the impression that SA was also sort of a state by the end of colonialism. Also, not sure about having people moving around so much when the explicit purpose is a nicer, more economically prosperous post-colonial period.
fashbasher
Banned
I'm not quite an economic determinist but I do see the fingerprints of the late 2000s recession, combined with the Internet, in all of these ominous phenomena.
fashbasher
Banned
Switzerland actually is very much a special case in that the different "tribes" (cantons and municipalities) have a lot of authority in competencies that are normally national, like citizenship. I don't know if it's something that can be replicated but it's not a true multicultural country do much as a tribal federation. The problem is that homogeneity seems often to be the product of a successful central state, not a prerequisite (look at Somalia, which has gone from a nation-state to a morass of tribes, or conversely at the historically multilingual nations of France and Sweden).
Skallagrim
Banned
I rather think that if the unification occurs voluntarily, and a democratic option for later secession remain available, "Swiss-like" states (that is: diverse confederations) may well arise and thrive. The point about homogeneity being a product of a central state is very accurate. I wouldn't call this a problem, however. There are lost of distinct tribes in Africa now, but if we follow the model of confederating those that are similar and get along, they may over time find themselves homogenising, much as the peoples of Europe have done. Either way, whether the end result (linguistically speaking) is a "France" or a "Switzerland", the logical starting point remains the same.
On that note, I present a WIP version of a more final map. In many places, I have added "provincial" borders, as @CtrlAltHistory mentioned earlier. These may well be subdivided further in themselves, but sorting that out would be a bit too much work, to be honest. As before, distinct colours show a religious distinciveness, and linguistic or ethnic distinctiveness on a very general level. Black borders show separate countries, based on more refined linguistic or ethnic distinctiveness within the larger group, or based on demographic considerations (that is: to stop heavily populated areas from dominating all others). White borders show "provinces", which must be assumed to enjoy a great degree of autonomy. Basically assume every country is a decentralised confederation.
The reason this map is a WIP is, frankly, that I've thus far been unable to find detailed information on the white areas. All maps of Bantu languages show larger subdivisions at best. To get a more accurate read on sensible provincial borders, I've had to rely on ethno-linguistic maps for separate countries-- which aren't that easy to obtain for all countries! If someone has detailed ethno-linguistic maps for the white regions, please let me know!
I believe you consider Muturzikin not a very reliable source.The reason this map is a WIP is, frankly, that I've thus far been unable to find detailed information on the white areas. All maps of Bantu languages show larger subdivisions at best. To get a more accurate read on sensible provincial borders, I've had to rely on ethno-linguistic maps for separate countries-- which aren't that easy to obtain for all countries! If someone has detailed ethno-linguistic maps for the white regions, please let me know!
Also what about Kabylia? They wanted autonomy within Algeria, I am disappointed they didn't get it after all
Skallagrim
Banned
The main issue (namely that local languages are deliberately favoured, even when their actual speakers constitute only a small minority nowadays) is actually not a problem for Africa: in virtually all cases, local languages remain in wider use.
Muturzikin maps have a few other issues, however. One of them is the frequent use of somewhat strange subdivisions (likely taken from inaccuate sources). When I look at the European map, I can see a lot of incorrect elements in the Low Countries, Germany, France etc. -- because I'm familiar with the actual situation there, I can tell where things are off. Typically, the map is generally correct, but off in various little ways. (And old subdivisions are often used, based on categorisations that have been debunked.)
This is also not a major problem, because it appears that the base map Muturzikin used is actually the same map of Africa that I've found to be generally most accurate/useful. Its biggest drawback is very unclear colour coding, so I've actually overlaid the Muturzikin map to avoid mistakes.
The major problem - the reason why Muturzikin's map could only provide limited help - is that, there, too, the colour coding is random. What I really needed was a map that colour-coded largely similar languages together. Some languages within the same major group in the revised Guthrie classification can still be very different, while others are almost identical.
In the end, I have scoured various sources to find out which languages are most similar, and ended up grouping them together based on that. This was quite the job! But I believe I've largely succeeded. There are still a lot of debates on the proper classification of Bantu languages, so where conflicting views existed, I had to make a decision. I've opted first and foremost to try and avoid putting hostile groups together (for instance, there were two languages that are widely considered near-identical, but the speakers hate each other and deny it vehemently). Besides that, I've simply grouped them by similarity.
You are quite right. I've taken special care to do more justice to the various Berber groups in the revised map below.
---
This, incidentally, is pretty much my fnal proposal. But I remain open for suggestions! Have I missed some separatist movement? Is there a local conflict I'm not aware of? Let me know.
Considering the criticism regarding South Africa, I've taken special care to do some extra legwork in that department. Besides checking maps and percentage data, I've also attempted to look at population numbers on as detailed a scale as possible. This has led me to make some revisions, basically swapping some areas. The end result is that more speakers of Afrikaans and English end up in South Africa, while more speakers of various Bantu languages end up in one of the Bantu countries.
Overall, I remain of the opinion that my original estimates were correct: the South Africa I propose is going to have an overwhelming majority of Afrikaans-speakers. This does not mean that Afrikaand-speakers are a majority in every part of the country. In the near-entirety of the larger western provinces, they will be a vast majority. Contrarily, Afrikaans-speakers will be an absolute majority in about half of the more controversial eastern province. They will be a plurality in about another quarter, and a minority in the final quarter of that province. I've taken especial care to try and leave any major settlements out of such non-majority areas, with the result that population-wise, there will be fewer non-Afrikaans-speaking inhabitants in the end.
The changes I have made can be seen on the map below. Red areas are removed from South Africa and added to the various Bantu countries. Dark green areas are, conversely, added to South Africa.
Interestingly, I find the revised "eastern province" to be much more aesthetically pleasing, too. This is pure coincidence, and opinions on what looks good may well vary, but I consider it a nice bonus!
It's been a lot of fun working on this, despite running a fever all the while. Great thread, @smjb! There have been lots of "better/ideal borders" threads, but as usual, Africa is too often ignored. Diving into the intricate division of this continent has been a fascinating experience.
One interesting note is that there are different kinds of Christian in Africa. Ethiopian Christianity is different from afro-protestant Christianity which is different than Catholic Christianity. Making a gigantic trans-african "Christian Land" will go just about as poorly as shoving half of Europe together as "Christian Land"
Skallagrim
Banned
The one I made was based on as recent maps as I could find-- although I must stress that maps of Africa's linguistic, ethnic and religious situation occasionally contradict each other outright, and some recent maps are apparently based on outdated information (because there sometimes isn't any reliable up-to-date information).
Fantastic job! For some reason, I totally missed that you had done this. My apologoes for not saying it earlier, then, but this is really splendid!
Vuu
Banned
Way to many panhandles and weirdness
One thing that you will find useful is that Africa is still prenationalist, but tribalist instead, sort of like Europe during the middle ages. All you need to do is make blobs that work and the rest will take care of itself. Then comes the unavoidable national phase where all the blobs get reconfigured to work in a new system, and so on, so in the end, you'll get a situation like today anyway, as they are just entering the national phase.
One thing that you will find useful is that Africa is still prenationalist, but tribalist instead, sort of like Europe during the middle ages. All you need to do is make blobs that work and the rest will take care of itself. Then comes the unavoidable national phase where all the blobs get reconfigured to work in a new system, and so on, so in the end, you'll get a situation like today anyway, as they are just entering the national phase.