help Africa

[HistIdiot]

Ok, before start, I want to say that I have no idea how to answer this question, and that's why I'm posting here. I've been thinking about the colonization of African and how the arbitrary borders have contributed to most of these nations pretty messed up since their independence. So, here's the challange: change the borders of colonies to make them more ethnically homogenous or somehow less crazy, but still use the same colonizers (UK, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium). Hopefully the above makes sense, as I am between classes and schools is sucking the life out of me right now

 

[karl2025]

Having the Europeans divide the continent into that many small administrative zones would be very difficult from a financial standpoint. I think it might actually help Africa more to have a longer time under Imperial Rule, especially one like England. The Europeans would gradually improve the infrastructure, build up local governments and introduce a form of democracy to them, and eventually release them as a dominion of the Empire in a reasonably good shape. The hard part is convincing Europe to go along with that.

 

[HistIdiot]

You also have to convince the Africans involved not to rebel and stay under Imperial rule, too. So maybe having fewer, larger colonies would help (like British East Africa staying as one nation or French West Africa being one country).

 

[Berra]

A slower colonisation. It happened so fast I dubt the powers knew what tribes livd where.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

Perhaps there could've been more made of the plans for Imperial Federation? That would've meant a slower and more orderly decolonisation. Britain could perhaps even take over from those countries who had to abandon their colonies post-war.

 

[Geordie]

Slower colonisation, leading to saner borders (there will always be some screw-ups, but there could be less very easily)

Slower decolonisation, resulting in more stable nations upon withdrawal.

More support/intervention after this by former Empires (such as through the commonwealth) is unlikely to harm things either


Geordie

 

[Smaug]

It might've helped if the European Powers had actually consulted the individual peoples in question, but that would've been really costly and implied that the Europeans actually gave a crap about said people.

It was all about markets and raw materials, and strategic spots. Noone gave a crap about alledgedly inferior people. The entire continent was just a resource, whether right or wrong.

 

[Alayta]

You also have to convince the Africans involved not to rebel and stay under Imperial rule, too. So maybe having fewer, larger colonies would help (like British East Africa staying as one nation or French West Africa being one country).

When I sudied Ethnology, anyone who would have uttered anything like that would have sooo been expelled!

I say - the europeans should have dealt with the african empires and kingdoms that were existing more intensivley. This way the africans could have done a development like the europeans and some asian nations did. Than naturaly the borders in africa would have grown (of course under brutal and cruel wars like in the rest of the world)

 

[Admiral Canaris]

It might've helped if the European Powers had actually consulted the individual peoples in question, but that would've been really costly and implied that the Europeans actually gave a crap about said people.

It was all about markets and raw materials, and strategic spots. Noone gave a crap about alledgedly inferior people. The entire continent was just a resource, whether right or wrong.

Then why was there such an opinion backlash against, for example, the pacification of South West Africa?

Considering all those myriad little polities was clearly unworkable; all but a few would be too small to support their own country anyway. An Imperial Federation would be the best option; internal self-government, while the colonial corps can still step in if/when it gets out of hand.

 

[mattw101]

Noone gave a crap about alledgedly inferior people.

That's a sweeping generalisation.

Sure, the powers didn't give the people living in their colonies the same rights as those in the metropolis, but there was an acknowledged 'duty of care' in the British at least. The overriding attitude was of paternalism which, although patronising, had the aim of protecting and 'bettering' the colonial peoples (whether they needed this or not is another question.)

Your assertion certainly applies to the Belgian Congo (in the pre-1908 period at least) and I think Portugal as well, although I know less about Angola and Mozambique.

There's also quite an important point that people are disregarding here.

When the colonies were established, none of the powers had the intention of giving them independence - the only important borders were those between the Great Powers, not different communities. The different ethnic groups would be seen to be protected within each crown colony itself.

 

[mishery]

You also have to convince the Africans involved not to rebel and stay under Imperial rule, too. So maybe having fewer, larger colonies would help (like British East Africa staying as one nation or French West Africa being one country).

This is what I have always thought would have helped. Less likelihood of a single ethnic group coming to dominate everything, all ethnic groups would be small relative to the total population. Easier to get a national identity as the identity will be closer "pan-African" than some arbitrary state. People can have local ethnic plus kinda pan-African identity.

I am sure these nations would still have major problems but maybe less than the current states.

And these big countries could all adopt Afrili as their national language (a constructed language based on Swahili with Arabic etc loanwords replaced with Bantu based words).