Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The idea that the Tutsi-Hutsi divide has been invented by Europeans is a myth AFAIK.
Yes, you're right, but it wasn't an arbitrary division institutionalized as the colonial powers made it, which was a disaster.
The idea that the Tutsi-Hutsi divide has been invented by Europeans is a myth AFAIK.
I think the speed we got Portugal to give up their colonies speaks for itself on out hideous efficiency. HIDEOUS! *Throws holy water around*
As has been said, using tribal lines is one of the stupidest ideas their is.
Africa's problems are'nt its borders (apart from one or two specific cases), it's problems are that America's idological idiocy lead to decolonization happening before the European powers (who by that point already knew they'd have to be given independence eventually) could actually build up infrastructure and create a functioning civil society.
Well, yes and no.
Part of what is now South Sudan was administered as part of Uganda, but overall Sudan, since it became a colony had been administered more or less as a single unit.
Their were some attempts to split the South off to form a seperate colony, the Equatoria idea being the most famous and lasting.
@#$%.!!! Four Paragraphs and then this erases it all. Anyways, it has some chances if the factions of the Soviets/Cubans, the French, the Commonwealth, and the United States play more off the border issues between Sudan and Egyp, Sudan and Ethiopia, Ethiopia and Somalia, Chad and Libya, and allow Angola to utterly split up. I personally would prefer to simply have had Bechuanaland and Angola to have straightened their borders with Nambia after WWI but that seems unrelated. Oh, and having the Soviets keep supporting the Somali instead of the Ethiopians and for the U.S. to support quasi-Christian and ancient Christian groups in the area to create a bulkwark against leftist Arabs and Somali.
Anyway, I don't think splitting Africa further is a solution. For example, if the French had left West Africa as a single nation rather than splitting it up into all those arbitrary countries, you would have had a much stronger and successful whole. When you have tons of little countries, too much wealth is wasted on military spending and tariffs.
South Sudan had its northen extension in 1916?I actually used historical maps for the borders. South Sudan's borders have always been like that and they do actually conform pretty well to the general ethno-religious divide in the Sudan.
Darfur's borders are the ones I took from the 1916 map, hence no Greater Darfur.
As for Ghana - well, I guess The Genocide is ridiculous, but I can only give names off what I can find and for Ghana, the northern Ashante provinces, were called Asanteman until they lost their independence in 1896. Given that the Asante and Fante languages are related Akan languages it wasn't unreasonable to assume that "Fante Union" would take on the same form as "Asante Union" ("Asanteman"). Again I used historical maps which showed the northern protectorate portion of the Gold Coast colony as being somewhat separate from the southern full colonial portion.
If it is incorrect though and the Asante do not live in the north and Fante (among other Akan groups) do not live in the south and the historical Asante state was not called Asanteman, then I would welcome your concrete suggestions as to who actually lived where and what the historical state was called and how one would call an independent Fante (or more generally Akan) state in the Fante dialect.......
I'd like to agree, but a single state in French West Africa would also be burdened with the problems of the whole, undermining the advantages of its parts.
South Sudan had its northen extension in 1916?
The Asante and the Fante are both Akan peoples, but even the map at the start of this very thread shows that your division is wrong.
Like what? Part of the problem with today's African states is that there are tribal or ethnic groups battling for dominance. In states with too many such groups for any to gain predominance, balances occur and people have to work within a state framework.
A single state would be a larger economic block, the poorer areas could be supported by the smaller, and the aggregate would have more revenue for development projects (and much less spent on militaries).
The transportation infrastructure is decent and requires only a few inexpensive and easy-to-build connecting lines (they are all of the same gauge), and there's even some important river transport. What civil class there is can intercommunicate with French, and a problem all the northern countries have - the Tuareg and other nomads, can be addressed by the whole, whereas today they are used as pawns in national rivalry and can escape state action by moving into adjacent states.
Further, even having been constituted independent states, they are moving together towards a union today.
I don't see any downside.
SNIP
So why don't you make a map?
As I've previously stated I've based it off historical borders. Didn't say I drew it off exact tribal borders. Not sure if you've been following the "Base Maps from 550 BC to Modern Day, all in UCS!" thread, but if you go from page 70 until the most recent page you can see the historical borders I'm talking about.
I think this topic came up a few weeks ago. Like you, I thought that there was something to this idea, but after that, I'm not so sure. Incidentally, a unified French West Africa would have one language that would be spoken by significant populations in every state: Fula.
I have seen the borders they use for Darfur and on the quality maps there, the only ones with that South Sudanese border depict the area from after World War II to the present day.
Fula would almost certainly be one of the official languages, and would be spoken by a large number of people spread throughout the area, at least as a second language.