Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Africa was never colonized by Europeans, and this is the same case with the Americas, then some other group would have done it sooner or later. Sub saharan Africa was lagging far behind the rest of the world, even the best kingdom that it had [Mali] was based on selling slaves to Europeans and to Arabs so it wasn't built on anything sustainable...The money, guns, and power they had all came from selling their fellow Africans. As soon as the slave trade ended so did Mali. It's not like there was a strong country that could fend off invaders, there still isn't even today. The Chinese are in a way colonizing Africa right now, they dominate the resources there and are expanding their influence more and more on the continent.
The Japanese, Chinese, would have colonized Africa if Europeans never did.
Same with the Americas - they wouldn't have stood by, they would have taken advantage of the vast resources available and colonized the new world if they got here first. The native peoples would have died just like they did when Europeans landed too since Asians share the same diseases that Europeans had. The native americans would have died just as easily from small pox from a Chinese person as they did from small pox coming from a Spaniard or English person.
The Arabs were colonizing sub saharan Africa for centuries before Europeans ever showed up and that's why i left them out. Almost the entire east coast of Africa had Arab Muslims making land grabs and pushing their culture and religion upon the population along with enslaving them. It's why Somalia is a Islamic nation and same with northern Nigeria, Mali, and various other countries. The city of Timbuktu was a slave trading city that the Arabs used as one of their main slave trading hubs so there is also that. More African slaves were taken to the middle east by Arabs than were taken to the New World by Europeans, that is something most people don't know but it's a fact that shows the scale of Arab colonization and other things they were doing in sub saharan Africa. All of that was before Europeans ever showed up too.
Anyways, if the question is only about what would have happened if Europeans never colonized Africa - then the Arabs would have kept colonizing, they were doing it already so why would they stop. Perhaps the continent would be like Somalia except on a continent wide scale today in that case...
The Arabs weren't really colonizing Africa they really didn't have a coordinated plan to do so, they were invading it and fighting wars and winning them. When you win wars you take on the loosing team's people as slaves. Europeans were still in Africa well before and or around the same time as the Arabs (the Greeks were there for example and the British kicked out a lot of the Arabs). The Arabs were certainly enslaving Africans it was and is still big business. Right now the Arabs feels entitled more than ever in Africa and that it is their for the taking so there is a lot of things they are currently doing to try to take over right now (things Chinese have never attempted to in Africa).
China has aided in the transformation of Africa. I know there are those that believe China is trying to colonize Africa and make good arguments but I don't think they understand the history and because of African nations China has a seat at the UN table. Had China not provided their support sadly African nations would have still lagged behind and the West would have still taken advantage of this while leaving Africa in ruins. Bilateral agreements is not colonization. China is building roads for example there is a cost - Africa will benefit from the project and so must China. Chinese aren't just going in an selling slaves or taking away ownership from these nations. There is always a cost when you borrow. The deals African nations sign with China are usually the same as the ones they sign with Western nations that have similar stipulations.
There is a new generation of Africans - people are waking up and are realizing that they have to work with strategic partners and that the preservation and sovereignty of their nation is worth fighting for. There are many European, Indian, Chinese, Arabs, USA settlers in Africa right now - this will certainly change the landscape of Africa over the next 5-10 years I wonder if this thread will be even more relevant at that time?
Last edited by bayarea-girl; 08-10-2020 at 11:35 AM..
China has aided in the transformation of Africa. I know there are those that believe China is trying to colonize Africa and make good arguments but I don't think they understand the history and because of African nations China has a seat at the UN table. Had China not provided their support sadly African nations would have still lagged behind and the West would have still taken advantage of this while leaving Africa in ruins. Bilateral agreements is not colonization. China is building roads for example there is a cost - Africa will benefit from the project and so must China. Chinese aren't just going in an selling slaves or taking away ownership from these nations. There is always a cost when you borrow. The deals African nations sign with China are usually the same as the ones they sign with Western nations that have similar stipulations.
I'd agree that China isn't out to colonize Africa. The Chinese themselves have had a pretty unhappy relationship with foreign imperialism too.
So they've been able to conclude projects in Africa (starting with the Tan-Zam railway way back in the early 1970s) because they don't have that colonial baggage that countries like France and the UK have. The Soviets and Russians didn't have a good reputation around the same time because their terms weren't very attractive. And the Chinese don't kick up a fuss about democracy or human rights in the often patronizing way that the US does.
That said, some of the more recent Chinese projects in Africa have been taking on more scrutiny due to the price tags and fears from some African countries over the debt levels involved, so the bloom is a bit off that. But in the long term, the Chinese are here to stay in Africa with increased economic activity.
I'd agree that China isn't out to colonize Africa. The Chinese themselves have had a pretty unhappy relationship with foreign imperialism too.
So they've been able to conclude projects in Africa (starting with the Tan-Zam railway way back in the early 1970s) because they don't have that colonial baggage that countries like France and the UK have. The Soviets and Russians didn't have a good reputation around the same time because their terms weren't very attractive. And the Chinese don't kick up a fuss about democracy or human rights in the often patronizing way that the US does.
That said, some of the more recent Chinese projects in Africa have been taking on more scrutiny due to the price tags and fears from some African countries over the debt levels involved, so the bloom is a bit off that. But in the long term, the Chinese are here to stay in Africa with increased economic activity.
Agree with all that you have stated, the debts aren't an issue. I think the regular person hears a billion dollar loan and thinks its outrageous - and to some people don't understand how they'd pay it back because they themselves couldn't pay back such a debt.
The Arabs weren't really colonizing Africa they really didn't have a coordinated plan to do so, they were invading it and fighting wars and winning them. When you win wars you take on the loosing team's people as slaves.
That's giving the Arabs a pass on what they did. They were the ones who began the African slave trade, the Europeans picked it up from the Arabs via the Spaniards and Portuguese who were under Arab rule for a few centuries themselves. There were African / black slaves in what is now called Iraq back in 850ad - which is 650 years before Europeans even discovered the New World and equally as long before Europeans began trading African slaves. The Arabs were enslaving Africans for close to, if not more than, 1,000 years before Europeans were doing that if other sources are included. There were even slave rebellions where the African slaves rebelled, one is called the Zanj rebellion and is still known even today...
And how do you know there was no coordinated plan to take over Sub-Saharan Africa? Perhaps the Arabs were just not as fast as the Europeans were when they tried to colonize the continent, but the Arabs were definitely present and enslaving / oppressing / forcing their religion long before Europeans ever came upon the scene. It is precisely why Eastern Africa is mostly Islamic and the areas bordering northern Africa are also Islamic - due to Arab incursions and colonization attempts.
Now i want to make my post work with what the OP was saying which is "If Africa was never colonized" [meaning by Europeans i assume] -- And again it obviously goes back to Arabs since they were already doing just that. They were colonizing the continent, perhaps slowly, but they were doing it. Eastern Africa is Islamic today, northern Nigeria is and so is many areas of western Africa. If Europeans did not "colonize" Africa then the Arabs would still be there, perhaps still enslaving people too - again why not, why would they stop? It was the British Empire which forced many many Arab states in Africa and the Middle East to stop slavery, they did not want to do so on their own. The continent would be facing Arab encroachment / colonization today if Europeans never entered the picture for sure.
I agree with the video to some extent. Even if Africa wasn’t colonized, it doesn’t change the core qualities of that region and other tropical regions.
- Low crop yields / Expensive food
- High percentage of workforce employed in agriculture. Not enough people available to produce other types of goods & services.
For the region to become developed, they will need a high percentage of the workforce not employed in agriculture with easy access to cheap food and water resources.
I agree with the video to some extent. Even if Africa wasn’t colonized, it doesn’t change the core qualities of that region and other tropical regions.
- Low crop yields / Expensive food
- High percentage of workforce employed in agriculture. Not enough people available to produce other types of goods & services.
For the region to become developed, they will need a high percentage of the workforce not employed in agriculture with easy access to cheap food and water resources.
That's giving the Arabs a pass on what they did. They were the ones who began the African slave trade, the Europeans picked it up from the Arabs via the Spaniards and Portuguese who were under Arab rule for a few centuries themselves. There were African / black slaves in what is now called Iraq back in 850ad - which is 650 years before Europeans even discovered the New World and equally as long before Europeans began trading African slaves. The Arabs were enslaving Africans for close to, if not more than, 1,000 years before Europeans were doing that if other sources are included. There were even slave rebellions where the African slaves rebelled, one is called the Zanj rebellion and is still known even today...
And how do you know there was no coordinated plan to take over Sub-Saharan Africa? Perhaps the Arabs were just not as fast as the Europeans were when they tried to colonize the continent, but the Arabs were definitely present and enslaving / oppressing / forcing their religion long before Europeans ever came upon the scene. It is precisely why Eastern Africa is mostly Islamic and the areas bordering northern Africa are also Islamic - due to Arab incursions and colonization attempts.
Now i want to make my post work with what the OP was saying which is "If Africa was never colonized" [meaning by Europeans i assume] -- And again it obviously goes back to Arabs since they were already doing just that. They were colonizing the continent, perhaps slowly, but they were doing it. Eastern Africa is Islamic today, northern Nigeria is and so is many areas of western Africa. If Europeans did not "colonize" Africa then the Arabs would still be there, perhaps still enslaving people too - again why not, why would they stop? It was the British Empire which forced many many Arab states in Africa and the Middle East to stop slavery, they did not want to do so on their own. The continent would be facing Arab encroachment / colonization today if Europeans never entered the picture for sure.
My comment did not give the Arabs a pass. I don't believe they started slavery or the slave trade. Africans had been enslaving others too and selling them. Yes the Arabs had been selling enslaved Africans before Europeans and were also very brutal. The Arabs were not well coordinated to colonize Africa certainly less coordinated than than the Europeans - they didn't have an entire Arab nation come over and colonize Africa mainly because they also fought against one another. The Europeans came together despite their differences to do as mentioned, so the Europeans were more coordinated and the colonization of Africa was a coordinated event.
East Africa is not mostly Islamic because of Arab incursions and colonization, it certainly had something to do with it not the entire picture. Do remember where did the Prophet Muhammed tell his followers to go? Also, East Africa for the most part is mainly Christian.
The Europeans came together despite their differences to do as mentioned, so the Europeans were more coordinated and the colonization of Africa was a coordinated event.
Yes, the Europeans never fought among each other. Europe has always been a war-free continent where nations coordinates very well among each other....
The European colonization of Africa is called scramble for Africa because was anything but coordinated.
Europe in the XVIII-XIX century was more rich, technologically advanced and populated than a lot of the rest of the world and was in a very unique position that had never been achieved before by anyone (including Europe itself).
Ancient Egypt tried to conquer modern Sudan but wasn't able to just. The Romans didn't have the technology to go south of the Sahara and wouldn't have had the ability to communicate with provinces so far away. Same for the Arab, the caliphate was already huge and the Sahara provided a huge barrier with no much incentive to go south except for trading along the coast.
On the other hand European had the technology to be able to communicate over huge distances and go south of the Sahara and into the jungle. There is really nothing that special about the European colonization of sub-Saharan Africa it's just that the Europeans were the first one in a position to do it. Had the Arabs been able to do it, they would have done it. Same for Romans, Egyptians or anyone else.
I'd agree that China isn't out to colonize Africa. The Chinese themselves have had a pretty unhappy relationship with foreign imperialism too.
China is a major imperial power. They invaded every nation around them multiple times and are in the process of displacing native cultures right now in territories they own in both Xinjiang and Tibet.
Yes, the Europeans never fought among each other. Europe has always been a war-free continent where nations coordinates very well among each other....
The European colonization of Africa is called scramble for Africa because was anything but coordinated.
Europe in the XVIII-XIX century was more rich, technologically advanced and populated than a lot of the rest of the world and was in a very unique position that had never been achieved before by anyone (including Europe itself).
Ancient Egypt tried to conquer modern Sudan but wasn't able to just. The Romans didn't have the technology to go south of the Sahara and wouldn't have had the ability to communicate with provinces so far away. Same for the Arab, the caliphate was already huge and the Sahara provided a huge barrier with no much incentive to go south except for trading along the coast.
On the other hand European had the technology to be able to communicate over huge distances and go south of the Sahara and into the jungle. There is really nothing that special about the European colonization of sub-Saharan Africa it's just that the Europeans were the first one in a position to do it. Had the Arabs been able to do it, they would have done it. Same for Romans, Egyptians or anyone else.
Of course Europeans fought against one another, this is in their history and yes they had more advanced technology in addition they had Africans fighting each other and were able to take what was left over. The Arabs took over North Africa. I'm not sure your are understanding my responses to another poster. The Arabs weren't as coordinated in the past. Keeping the colonial rule didn't last long for Europe and maintaining the grip has been loosening for some time now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
