If Africa Was Never Colonized? (travel, cons, culture, 2015)

[Atlwarrior]

If Africa was never colonized you wouldn’t have been the thought that white is superior and having a broad nose and dark skin means you are less than human. I think the economic market would be different History would also be told correctly. An absolute excellent short clip on the origin and effects of Greek thinking.

https://youtu.be/Ci2LNADbVjY

The Origins of "The Philosophy of Racial Superiority'

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Again Africa is not monolithic. The History of Africa is not monolithic. The Idea that trying to use Liberia a small areas that never was a center a powerful African state as a example of how Africa would be like never colonized is flawed. Oh because Liberia was like blank so Ghana and etc would be like that too. That views seem to be missing something.

Also while Ethiopia was hardly colonized the general region around Ethiopia was. Giving Ethiopia minimal influence and power even it's own region.


There actually was a few Sub sahara African society that develop a form communication through writing but that isn't the point. a lot of advancement in the world had through trade. Christianity is not native to Europe, Islam is not native to most of the middle east. Along the Sahel and Parts of East Africa there was spread of Islam. And So parts a spread of Christianity that spread of literacy among the elite. So idea that education and etc could not be spread is false.

Keep in Mind my point is not that African states would not endure conflicts my point is through trade with Europe and Asia the power African states would likely expand into other areas of Africa. Spreading ideas and etc. The idea that colonization was necessary to spread advancing technological is bs, because the more powerful African states could did it themselves. The difference would been powerful African states drawing borders themselves then European forcing lines that conflicted with cultures.

Whose fault was it that Africa wasn’t connected with global trade networks? You’re talking in circles.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Whose fault was it that Africa wasn’t connected with global trade networks? You’re talking in circles.

this reply from you litteally makes makes no sense towards anything you respond to in that quote from me.

I didn't say anything about Africa being or being not being connected with global trade networks, or anything of anything was somebody fault of anything. This respond from you has nothing to do with what I said.

But let try to address what your saying, Again let me say this again Africa is not monolithic different parts of Africa was more connect and had more developed kingdoms and etc then others parts. So the comment "Whose fault was it that Africa wasn’t connected with global trade networks?" doesn't make sense. because "Africa" has never been one political entry.

Oblivious Deep in Congo where it's heavier jungle was least develop but A long the Sahel, Mediterranean, Indian and Atlantic Oceans they were connect, My point wasn't about a lack of connection. but the opposite clearly historically there were pre colonial states through trade and etc that were flourishing for their age. More so current African nations now. There needs to be modern Songhai, Ashante, Axum, Great Zimbabwe. and etc in Africa.

[Lodestar]

Originally Posted by Atlwarrior

If Africa was never colonized you wouldn’t have been the thought that white is superior and having a broad nose and dark skin means you are less than human. I think the economic market would be different History would also be told correctly. An absolute excellent short clip on the origin and effects of Greek thinking.

https://youtu.be/Ci2LNADbVjY

The Origins of "The Philosophy of Racial Superiority'

Not so. The roots of colorism probably predate most literature and can be identified, for example, in ancient Indian writings among other pre-colonization works including the Bible.

[chiatldal]

During the 18th century there was a lot of romantic nationalism in Europe that played significant role creating modern nation states in Europe. Countries were looking for legitimacy to exist and unity, So language, traditions, foklare, for epic, music and etc, When have something deeper rooted it creates a sense of Honors. Something for leaders to live up to.

The issues with colonialism it interrupted something organic. So if you look at a lot of modern African nations their ethnogenesis is the border were just drawn this ways, and cultural means nothing. And with detachment paves more way to division and corruption. Trying live up countries that only exist because they wanted independence from Europe and that greatest thing that bring unity. It's not like trying live up 200 to 500 or even thousand years cultures.

As before stated from 1750 to 1920's there was a lot changes in European borlders.

1789, French Revolution
1804–15, Serbian Revolution against the Ottoman Empire
1814, Norwegian independence attempt against Denmark-Norway and future Sweden & Norway, aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars (including War on independence)
1815, Congress of Vienna
1821-29, Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire
1830, Croatian national revival
1830-31, Belgian Revolution
1830-31, Revolution in Poland and Lithuania
1846, Uprising in Greater Poland
1848, Nationalist revolts in Hungary, Italy and Germany (including Polish revolt in Greater Poland)
1859, Romania unified
1859-61, Italy unified
1863, Polish national revolt
1866-71, Otto Von Bismarck unifies Germany
1867, Hungary granted autonomy
1867, Irish Fenian uprising
1878, Congress of Berlin: Serbia, Romania and Montenegro granted independence, after they won the war against the Ottoman Empire
1905, Slav nationalism gathers force in the Habsburg and Ottoman Empire
1905, Norway becomes fully independent from United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway
1908, Bulgaria becomes independent
1912, Albanian national awakening Albania becomes independent

Historically Italy was divided into Different kingdoms. There were different variance of Italian dialects, history and etc, but They share Italian cultures.


Like Wise while there a lot of different cultures and languages in Africa, a lot of it is sub groups and languages belonging to a larger culture.


Yorubaland expend Benin, Nigeria and Togo, Yorubaland was historically divided into different kingdoms and city-States. Oyo Kingdom, Benin Kingdom and etc. If Africa was never colonized Africa you had unification of Some cultures and a lot of states, taking over smaller ones. but borlders they would drawn base on cultures.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...est_Africa.jpg

And that Just Yorubaland imagine if there was unification of Swahili cultures.

Also there would been more historic land marks and etc. In Cities like Benin, Kumasi and etc. Colonialization not only destroyed a lot in Africa especially during the invading wars. but a lot of the infrastructure build by the British was not towards modernizing African cities, but towards mines and ports they build, This is why places like Norirbi grew instead of Swahili Settlements. because the infrastructure was not built to benefit Africa but there own self interests.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3276/2...06778fa0_b.jpg


https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5067/5...274e0ea0_b.jpg

[BPt111]

99% world population wouldn’t be alive today and history would been different

[PamelaIamela]

Sub-Saharan Africa would have no desire to adopt European concepts of democracy or complex civil institutions, but would continue to interact and operate at a multitude of lower, more decentralized and local tribal levels.

There would be no need to pretend or attempt to create 'republics' or provincial governing bodies, as all decisions and actions would take place at the tribal or tribal-alliance level. Corruption, as we view it today, would be a meaningless concept, as 'to the victor belongs the spoils' would be accepted as the natural state of affairs. Advancement in education, science, architecture, or the arts would occur at a snails pace, indeed, if at all.

The introduction of outside armaments and modern goods would speed up inter-tribal warfare, and the few who sought 'advancement' would flee to other parts of the world as opportunity dictated. Eventually western do-gooders would try to intervene to stop the genocides and 'poverty and backwardness'.

The animals, especially elephants, would be all dead or on the brink of extinction as they would be sold to China and the rest of the world for hard currency. There would be no African money of any real value and there would be no National Park System'.

Sort of like today, but without the 'western values' that cause the sense of failure and hypocrisy that follow.

[Chevalier de Saint-George]

^^^ You have to hand it to her or him...that what a very creative post. It's really interesting how the human mind works.

[dozerbear]

Originally Posted by 80s_kid

^^^ You have to hand it to her or him...that what a very creative post. It's really interesting how the human mind works.

And most likely pretty accurate.

[Chevalier de Saint-George]

Originally Posted by dozerbear

And most likely pretty accurate.

So the continent of Africa would kill/sell most of their animals? You think they would have never delved into the arts, sciences, education, and architecture? That's interesting. The only things y'all think Africa is about are genocides, poverty, and being backwards.