State of Africa if Colonies Never Gained Indpendence

Well, that's not entirely true -- there are plenty of people of Tasmanian Aboriginal descent around, but they're all mixed-race. There's no one of completely Tasmanian Aboriginal descent left, though.

Not according to Anthony Mudene.

But yeah we were pretty good to ethnic cleansing.

If the Europeans gave to cents about the native Africans then the Colonies could have been a good thing, though honestly I don't think much would be different, no genocide but probably a low level, Europenisation of the natives and an insurgency but more a slow drip rather then a flood of blood.

Some Countries, wait does Egypt and Libya count in this?, Keyna would be worse off, Zimbabwe may be better off.
 
No WW1 means no USSR. You are left with Russia ruled by either Tsars or Russian nationalists. Russia was just an old fashion colonial empire that happened to have its colonies (Central Asia, Poland, Finland, and Siberia) attached to the Russia majority areas. Whoever rules Russia in a no WW1 scenario has a vested interest in defending the status quo.

Arab spring will not happen in North Africa due to demographics. It will be majority European. In the Middle East proper, it will be controlled by the Ottomans.

I didn't say anything about a WW1 POD, nor did I say the Arab Spring would happen.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Well, that's not entirely true -- there are plenty of people of Tasmanian Aboriginal descent around, but they're all mixed-race. There's no one of completely Tasmanian Aboriginal descent left, though.

Are you sure they are Tasmanian versus mainland aboriginals? And even if there is a little DNA left, it is not much of tribute to the Aussies.

Well technically, if there was a POD early enough to stop decolonization, AIDS would be butterflied away.

No. AIDS jumped to humans from two different species. One Monkey, one chimp. And it may have made the jump many times more to humans.
 
"Well technically, if there was a POD early enough to stop decolonization, AIDS would be butterflied away."

Can you explain how you come to that conclusion?
 
At times I have thought colonialism of a sort was good - after Britain's intervention in Sierra Leone polls were done which showed that huge numbers wanted a British administation and that the British High Commissioner and the leading General could have run for president and won. But those kind of sentiments pass quickly. In 2002 there was a lot of discussion around "New Imperialism" that highlight the risks associated with the assumption that "poor exploited Africans" would welcome "honest administrations" of any kind. A extract from a newspaper of the time discusses it better than I can:

"Mr Cooper has made waves by arguing for a "new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle."

The case for the new imperialism is an appealing one. If a country is descending into chaos and threatens its neighbours, send in well-trained troops and sort the mess out. It has worked out well in Sierra Leone, where UN intervention was not quite enough. It needed a bit of British steel as well.
The danger is that new imperialism can slip into the old imperialism. The local population may be grateful at first to outside administrators for restoring order. But once these advisers start pushing their weight around, and old arrogant attitudes creep in, the honeymoon can wear off pretty quickly.

For the new imperialism to work, the outsiders must not overstay their welcome. They should dispense advice and aid, help rebuild, encourage clean government then get out. The timing is crucial. Leave too soon and all the good work may collapse, linger too long and gratitude turns to resentment. But who said imperialism was easy, old or new."
 
"The danger is that new imperialism can slip into the old imperialism."

I'd say that the new imperialism is really just the old imperialism with PR window dressing. Corder, you caution that there is a risk of arrogance creeping in, but the whole concept is arrogant from the get-go. The idea is based on the premise that 'we need to go in and sort out Johnny foreigner's mess'. That pretty much sums up 19th century gunship diplomacy. Your comment about "It needed a bit of British steel as well" I think betrays the main factor in why some people like the idea of this new imperialism - it's a feel good exercise for some people who want to indulge in a little nationalistic posturing under the cover of being angels of mercy.

Military intervention may be necessary at times but any kind of imperialism is going to cause more problems than it solves.
 
Top