No European Colonialism in Africa

[ninebucks]

The thing about colonialism, is that in many cases its actually fuelled by good intentions.

During the Scramble, many people in Britain thought it was essential to secure as much of Africa as possible, to make sure that other, less tolerant colonisers didn't get to it first. And I'm sure the attitude persisted in other colonising nations too.

Europe was a jingoistic place, people were sure that if their neighbouring nation were to secure a strip of Africa they would treat its people inhumanely. So even though a few people might have viewed leaving Africa to its own devices as the ideal solution, they would have to come to the conclusion that doing so what leave the people in question at the mercy of their inhumane enemies.

Basically, if one power starts colonising, then other powers will jump to counter their influence, whether such a move be justified by geopolitical, economic, or even humanitarian motives. For this reason, butterflying away European Colonialism is difficult...

 

[Berra]

I also liked the idea of no Muhammad, that definitely has some possibility. Nevertheless, Europeans would probably still plunder the coastline.

Make a twist on it. Muhammed exist, Islam start out as OTL but the relations with Christianity are much better. It doesn't make it as controversial.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
What does "European Colonialism in Africa" mean? Are Portuguese interventions in Makongo colonialism?

 

[Hnau]

Sure. In fact, I guess that this thread should be better titled 'Least European Contact Possible in Africa'.

 

[wkwillis]

Considering (with the exception of Belgian Congo) that most European colonial powers outlawed slavery when they took over an area, I find the idea that there would be no slavery in Africa very hard to believe.

If you are willing to learn more I suggest you check out Adam Hochschild's book,
Bury the Chains which discusses African slavery and the British abolition movement in great detail.

My guess is that Africa would be even more backward than it is today, because most of the infrastructure in Africa was built by the colonial powers. This has been slowly changing but it remains a fact for most of the continent.

No, they didn't abolish slavery, they just regulated it to their benefit and put it under government control. The Europeans used slavery as a form of tax called corvee, where the chiefs enforced their power by sending their choice of young men to work as slave labor. The survivors were supposed to return to their villages, and brought diseases back when they did.
Belgians, French, Portuguese, British, Spanish, Italians all did it.

 

[Dave Howery]

SE Africa would be vastly different. The coastal trading cities there, and the inland kingdom of Zimbabwe (although it had a different name that I don't recall right now) were wealthy. It was basically Portuguese colonialism that destroyed them. However, if the Europeans skip Africa and still colonize India, the African cities will go through a severe economic crunch.

It seems to me that without colonization, there would be nothing like the modern borders in Africa today. Perhaps they would roughly follow native African kingdom boundaries (even if the kingdoms themselves go through several changes)... Zimbabwe, Kongo, etc. You'd still have large San communities in the far south (black communities never settled the place because, apparently, the Mediteranean climate of S. Africa was unsuitable for their crops, and they didn't have the appropriate plant crops for the region).

Of course, most of us are talking about sub-Saharan Africa. It's hard to imagine that coastal N. Africa wouldn't be colonized... it's been tied to European history since ancient times...

 

[Tyr]

Totally removing all European colonies in Africa is a bit ASB.
Keeping them confined mainly to the coasts though is easier then making them follow the OTL route of carving up the continent though really. The scramble for Africa just happened when it did due to the depression the world was in at the time and the unstable political climate with the defeat of France and formation of Germany.
In a stable financial climate it just isn't worth attempting anything. And with stable politics you won't get nations grabbing areas just to stop other nations doing the same (the primary reason for most of Africa being painted blue and red)

Africa would be worse off though overall. They would get none of the benefits of colonialism but they would still get all the guns and other nastyness seeping through.