No "new imperialism"

There seems to be a general agreement that the "new imperialism" of the period 1870-1914 was not really profitable (although it was proftitable for some of the firms, it was not so for the colonising countries). Power, strategy and prestige are reasons that have been given for this imperialism. Is it conceivable that the colonising countries might have come to the conclusion that it was not worth the bother to colonise Africa and other areas they colonised in this period. And, maybe the most interesting question, what effect would it have on for instance Sub-Saharan Africa if the it had never been colonised?
 
It is certainly conceivable that much less of the world could have been colonized. It's not very plausible that the reason they wouldn't colonize is just because they "decided not to bother". There were very real reasons-even if they turned out burdensome in many cases-for colonization to happen. You need to avert the reasons. For example, the Ottomans being strong enough to intervene against the Dutch in SE Asia.

In any case, not being colonized would have an incredible effect in any timeline. In Sub-Saharan Africa you'd have no divide-and-conquer policies fostering ethnic hatred, no destruction of urban bureaucracies, no arbitrary re-tribalization, less extractive infrastructure, much less nonsensical borders, etc. Africa in general would be far more technologically advanced and stable. This could also have a great impact on Pan-Africanism depending on the PoD.

EDIT: As I recall @NegusNegast could probably provide some good answers for this topic.
 
Would Africa have been more traditional in such a time line? I guess even if the Europeans did not colonise the continent, you might see the development of locally based empires, as Africans would buy weapons from Europeans in order to make empires.
 
Would Africa have been more traditional in such a time line? I guess even if the Europeans did not colonise the continent, you might see the development of locally based empires, as Africans would buy weapons from Europeans in order to make empires.

Well what do you mean by "more traditional"? And yes, even in OTL we see Africans developing large empires through new tech before colonization. Ethiopia, Zanzibar, Egypt/Ottomans, Rabih's conquests, etc.
 
Well what do you mean by "more traditional"? And yes, even in OTL we see Africans developing large empires through new tech before colonization. Ethiopia, Zanzibar, Egypt/Ottomans, Rabih's conquests, etc.

By more traditional, I am thinking about way of life. Will less people live in big cities? Maybe they would also keep older religions (animism and so on)? I assume that missionaries would go there even without imperialism, but they might be less successful. Maybe some areas that are Christian today would be Muslim in this scenario.
 
There seems to be a general agreement that the "new imperialism" of the period 1870-1914 was not really profitable (although it was proftitable for some of the firms, it was not so for the colonising countries). Power, strategy and prestige are reasons that have been given for this imperialism. Is it conceivable that the colonising countries might have come to the conclusion that it was not worth the bother to colonise Africa and other areas they colonised in this period. And, maybe the most interesting question, what effect would it have on for instance Sub-Saharan Africa if the it had never been colonised?

Most likely, these areas fall under the control of white filibusters or settlers with commercial backing (think Congo Free State, or Hawaii). Or Arab filibusters and settlers (east Africa).
 
Most likely, these areas fall under the control of white filibusters or settlers with commercial backing (think Congo Free State, or Hawaii). Or Arab filibusters and settlers (east Africa).

A bit like how the colonisation of India started? Although that was the East India Company, not filibusters. You had something similar happening in Nicaragua, with William Walker.
 
By more traditional, I am thinking about way of life. Will less people live in big cities? Maybe they would also keep older religions (animism and so on)? I assume that missionaries would go there even without imperialism, but they might be less successful. Maybe some areas that are Christian today would be Muslim in this scenario.
I think Christinaity sometimes did better when you didn't have colonial groups around. Look at Assam. Three of the Region's are majority or plurality Christian, though it may be in part due to the greater respect those culture gave to women. It is the only religion in India with more women than men.
 
For a start, you need... well, not necessarily a French victory in the Franco-Prussian War, but at the very least a defeat that doesn't involve the trauma of losing Alsace-Lorraine. That was one of the big drivers that led towards France expanding into sub-Saharan Africa at break neck pace, which in turn helped spark everyone else following.
 
Top