Challenge: Stronger, Richer Africa

[Beowulf2005]

(I almost put this in the Post-1900 thread, but decided it would work better here.)
What would it take to create a world in which the nations of Africa (and feel free to create alternate nations in addition to or instead of a few of the ones that already exist--but no Draka) are stronger and richer?
My thought is that a better decolonization program, but you might also need to make the French/Belgians/Dutch/etc. better colonizers--building infrastructure like the British did in their colonies. Let's face it--if ever there could be said to be "good" colonizers, it was the British.
And having someone who was actually aware of which tribes controlled what drawing the maps would also help.
Seriously, I think it would be an interesting scenario. Stronger Egypt as a force in North Africa and/or the Middle East, Ethiopia with a trading empire, South Africa with less tears, just keep it reasonable and not TOO ASB.
(Also, maps are encouraged--would this be a good idea for a Map Contest?)

 

[Hendryk]

Let's face it--if ever there could be said to be "good" colonizers, it was the British.

I take issue with such a generalization. Britain did a half-decent job in India (if you're willing to gloss over the destruction of the pre-colonial economy and the cynical exploitation of ethnic and sectarian divisions, which led to the disastrous post-independence partition) and perhaps in Malaysia as well, but in Africa the British record isn't particularly outstanding. Just because it didn't engage in the kind of vicious exploitation practiced by Belgium in Congo doesn't mean it did noticeably better than France or Portugal.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The British only built infrastructure where it was militarily necessary (Sudan) or to extract resources. If anyone actually developed their colonies, it was the French.

As Hendryk says, generalization is meaningless. Even in my example, that applies to Algeria and Tunis, not so much the rest.

The performance of the imperial powers varied greatly from place to place and time to time, subject to a large number of factors. None of them were particularly saintly.

If you want a stronger, richer Africa, then the POD needs to be a LACK of imperial domination, not "better" domination.

I would suggest as potential "rich" African countries Bornu, Zanzibar, Buganda, and Egypt/Sudan.

(I almost put this in the Post-1900 thread, but decided it would work better here.)
What would it take to create a world in which the nations of Africa (and feel free to create alternate nations in addition to or instead of a few of the ones that already exist--but no Draka) are stronger and richer?
My thought is that a better decolonization program, but you might also need to make the French/Belgians/Dutch/etc. better colonizers--building infrastructure like the British did in their colonies. Let's face it--if ever there could be said to be "good" colonizers, it was the British.
And having someone who was actually aware of which tribes controlled what drawing the maps would also help.
Seriously, I think it would be an interesting scenario. Stronger Egypt as a force in North Africa and/or the Middle East, Ethiopia with a trading empire, South Africa with less tears, just keep it reasonable and not TOO ASB.
(Also, maps are encouraged--would this be a good idea for a Map Contest?)

 

[Earling]

The question is always whether informal empire is better than formal empire. One or the other seems certain.

The Europeans have many advantages. As they industrialise in the 19th century it is inevitable that they will play havoc with the preindustrial economies and states they find. The Europeans shall not accept any native attempts to prevent this economic penetration. Given the military strength of the Europeans it is unlikely any African state shall be able to resist for long.

One thing however is certain. The Europeans do have limited resources. So a 'Britain rules all of Africa' timeline, even if you are under the belief the British were 'good' colonisers, would see things worse not better.

The British had a considerable influence over most of Africa before the scramble in any case. They came as traders not nation builders. Much of Africa doesn't fit the model of the European nation state in any case.

I suspect an Africa without the European Empires wouldn't have richer or more powerful states, but a vast number of microstates, unions and the like might be more peaceful and thus command more total wealth and stability.

 

[Umbral]

I'll repost my own post from the "No european colonizing " thread:

Possible PODs:

1) The Ethiopian kingdom(s) goes through an slight political reformation, centralizing power early on, and follows up with engaging in sea trade in the Red Sea, expanding and exploring. Centuries later, there is significant Ethiopian trade in the indian ocean, and trading colonies on the east coast of South Africa.
Ethiopian culture and technology will also probably diffuse west, with fluctuating land borders. Analogous to the Russian states absorbing european tech and ideas.

In TTL, Arabia will probably be considered part of Africa.

2) The Mongols make a serious go of the invasion of europe, but meet more difficulty than they had anticipated. The Mongol war continues like a hundred years war, as Khans come and go, and the horde breaks up. With nearly every mainland European power ravaged repeatedly, and the exceptions forced into an extreme focus on defense. The holdouts would be in Scandinavia/Iceland and on the British Isles. Possibly on the Iberian peninsula.
The war only ends when the Black Death covers all the lands, breaking kings and tearing down the last europeans in civil war. Europes back is broken for centuries.

In TTL there may not be anything called "Europe", just a peninsula to Asia.

3) Mali at its OTL height comes into a dynamic, outward-focused ruler, who enjoys a long, healthy reign. With a focus on sea trade and power, Mail becomes an African analogue to Scandinavia -close enough to benefit from the european development, while to a degree protected from harm by climate and geography.
This can be combined with no.1, for a scenario where there are two strong seapowers, one in the northeast of the continent, the other on the west side, completly blocking european access.

Religon would be interesting, as Ethipoia could be christian with Mail Islamic. Most likly, the view of the continents would be more along classical lines, with the mediterranean coast a separate unit, and "Africa"s borders being delineated by the Sahara.

4) The Garamantes gets hold of the Roman steam engine. This civilization, unlike the Roman, had a desperate need for it. I could see combustion happening early in TTL. They will be drilling one of the worlds most oil-rich terriotries, with a desperate need for fuel.

 

[Beowulf2005]

All right, all right, point taken.
It was just one possibility for this scenario, not the only possibility.
My point was mainly that the British were better than the other Europeans at colonizing nations, and they tended to leave said colonies better off than, say, France or Belgium.
I was not arguing in favor of colonialism, and I apologize for giving you that impression.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

What if Liberia had become an American state?

A political stable "anchor" in western africa could have been good for Africa.

I remember a article on investment in the third world. It was discussed that if Puerto Rico tried to nationalize anything it would face an invasion!

That is the type of reassurance that encourages investment.

 

[ninebucks]

I'm going to take advantage of the fact that this is in the pre-1900 forum and suggest a really ancient POD.

Before my current essay-writing season started, I was thinking about a TL where the Ancient Egyptians build an artificial strait across the Isthmus of Suez. In TTL, Egypt eventually becomes much more important, entering into political union with the Phoenician colonies and conquering Italy and Iberia.

The creation of the strait makes East Africa much more accessable, and the Egypto-Phoenicians apply their agricultural practices to as much of it as possible. Northern Europe is essentially left to its own devices, with the exception of a few naval colonies in the Baltic.

The Egypto-Phoenician Empire is eventually eclipsed by the Ethiopian Empire, a religiously hegemonic state that occupies an arc of land from the Horn of Africa to Western India, however, remnants of the former civilisation survive further south.

Ethiopian hegemony persists for most of the next millenia while Europe slowly developes. The extremes of European medieval feudalism are somewhat avoided, as states still tend to be run along pre-Roman kin/tribe bases. With the exception of the Baltic Colony, which assumes control of most of Scandanavia and eventually OTL Russia.

With the Suez Strait in place, and with little naval ingenuity in Europe, no attempts at circumventing Africa are made, as such, states in West Africa are able to develop with no unwanted interferrence. However, this liberation comes at a price, as Eastern Africa hosts a very strictly hierarchical society, where descendents of the original colonisers have all the power, and indigenous races are kept as serfs.

Without a strong naval tradition in Europe, in TTL, the Americas are discovered by the Koreans, and settled by the peoples of East Asia.

By the modern day, Europe is much less developed, equivilant with OTL India, its people have a history of being imported to the American East Coast for cheap labour. The areas of the western Indian Ocean are much more developed than OTL, with the western IO being TTL's analogue of the Mediterranean. China, Korea and Canton are all superpowers, and have close links with their New World colonies. East Africa no longer suffers from minority government, and is classified as a medium-developed region. West Africa is also classified as medium-developed, yet, more importantly, it is much more political stable, consisting mostly of what we in OTL would call constitutional monarchies. South Africa is essentially a median of the two regions.