If one problem with the colonisation of Africa was grouping a bunch of different ethnicities that hated each other (or not), would it be feasible to have a nation state for every ethnicity in Africa?
If this map is correct I would assume it'd be a nightmare to accomplish.
Notice how the most ethnically diverse countries are the most unstable, chaotic, and violent. I'm sure this is just a coincidence.
>>328054
That map is post colonial contact, African States were multiethnic generally speaking. Had they been able to remain in all likelihood it'd mitigate your worries.
That being said, looking at a map of Europe it's really not all that different.
That wouldn't make any sense. It would cause more problems than it would fix.
The problem isn't about tiny tribes, but things like different religions and modes of living. Most of the ethnic conflicts you hear about are actually between farmers and pastorals or Muslims and Christians. Hell, Rwanda is one of the only African states with precolonial tribal borders and it experienced one of the worst genocides in African history.
>>328127
That's because of the Belgians giving Tutsi far more power and privileges than they had before.
The whole Tutsi and Hutu classification process was changed by them, it became at some points just a matter of cattle owner ship.
Even then there was a Catholic and protestant divide that only made things worse, European religious leaders were fanning the flames.
>>328081
Ethnic diversity does cause additional friction within a country, yes. But if you have ways of dealing with that friction, it's no worse than any other source of friction within a country. On the other hand, if you have a bunch of former colonies with absolutely nothing holding them together now that the Europeans are gone, of course you're going to get violence and chaos.
>>328149
The Hutu and Tutsi were more like castes than different tribes, right?
>>328196
I wouldn't cut it so dry, rather they all share genetics between twa, Bantu and nilo-saharan groups to different degrees but sharing a common language and culture.
This was however made more extreme because of European colonialists and their racial superiority habits. Tutsi were the descendants of Roman soldiers, they were the descendants of the Mediterranean Aethiopids, they were Caucasoid rulers of the Negroids.
All these things were held as fact, the result was them given many rights and hutu being marginalized. Hutu with cattle or light skin or with thin noses were made Tutsi and some Tutsi who farmed were made Hutu.
It's silly though, the first Tutsi I met was 4'11" and obviously with significant Twa ancestry. His parents had cattle though and thus he was made Tutsi.
Google books has some good info available, in the end because of the Genocide my country has suffered ever since. The Congolese Wars are wars of the Banyarwanda people.
>>328081
People fight over so much shit if not ethnicity it's some other reason.
>>328054
What a shitty map. The cartographer falsely conflated "ethnicity" with "tribe", which makes everywhere look much more diverse than it actually is
In reality, an Africa composed of nation-states would be pretty complex, but not as crazy as that map implies
>>328518
THANK YOU
Twi people consider ourselves one nation. We're aware of Fante, Asante, etc. but it's about as relevant as the difference between the German states in the HRE.
>>328054
>Assuming the Somali clans are different ethnicities
What? We're all one big Tribe.
>>329190
This is how you can tell the mapmaker was another non-african ivory tower liberal who thought he comprehended our ethnicities
>>329201
Ugh, tell me about it. I mean yes technically Somali is more than one language and yes Somali people have never seen themselves as one nation but they are a People and generally see themselves as such unless they're like Yibir whom they call Jews and other periphetic groups.
Plus they are a single state now.
>>329233
I once met a fool who thought that Africa should be "united" by ethnolinguistics.
By that he meant a Bantu country, a Mande country, Nilotic, Semitic, etc.
>mfw
>>329250
OK?
>>329233
>Somali is more than one language
It's one. May isn't used by anyone younger than 65.
We've been seeing ourselves as one nation since the war of the Mad Queen in 50 bc.
We haven't been a single state since 1885 and that is the entire problem.
Yibirs have nothing to do with Jews. They're descended from the Pagan Priests which is why they're paid the Samanyo.
>>329288
Even Oromo and Afar is understandable In Somali
>>328518
Wouldn't this just be like painting an ethnicity map of Europe and colouring Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, San Marino, Vatican City, Andorra, Monaco, Moldova and Romania all the same just because they all speak Romance languages?
Or am I misunderstanding and this isn't a language family map?
>>329702
It's an ethnolinguistic map.
Imagine a map of Europe with all the Germanic, Romance, Finno-Ugric, Balto-Slavic, and Celtic languages in huge blobs
>>328196
They are different races altogether. As a uninitiated Yuropean I could distinguish between the two with a very low rate of error after spending a mere two weeks in Cyangugu and Butare.
It's true the Belgian did consider Hutus as regular Bantus while Tutsi were deemed more noble in appearance and intelligence.
Blaming this for the genocide is pants-on-head retarded. It is also a dindunuffinism of the highest order, framing the few Belgian colonists from decades prior with little connection in a pathetic attempt to shift the blame. Tutsi were already dominating the Hutu when Rwanda was discovered.
I don't think that ethnic map is correct. At a first glance, Somalis for example are a single ethnic group who populate an area so wide it in fact exceeds Somalia; yet in that map Somalia is divided between several ethnicities.
>>329718
Are you kidding?
The first Hutu I met looked like Paul Kagame.
>>329250
Yep. More cheap labour, more low info voters, more chances for divide and conquer tactics.
It'll be great for the politicians and the business elite. You and I? Nope...
>>328054
I'm pretty sure that most of those ethnicities can be dumped into bigger ethnic groups, which in turn can be dumped into even bigger ones and so on.
I'll like to have the names of those supposed "ethnicities". North Africa is not that diverse, unless you're gonna tell me European countries are also diverse (which is true, but then you cannot say africa is unstable due to ethnic diversity). Morocco has all those groups, but they can live together well.
>>329702
Maybe, but all those countries can in turn be divided into bigger divisions, which in turn can be divided again, resulting in something like OP's map. Only Spain (and maybe France if you count Corsica) has significant "ethnic" tensions, and they're a joke compared to anything that's going on in Africa.
Liberal logic:
>African countries don't work because the borders where drawn with no regards of the cultures and peoples living there.
>Europe needs diversity, multiculturalism works, stop being racist.
>>329702
No, it would be like coloring Europe one big blob of "Indo-European" except for a tiny portion of Basque country, Malta, Finland, Hungary, and the portion of Greece that Turkey still owns. It's breaking them up by Language family. It's also rather old (Semitic-Hamitic is an old term for what we now call "Afro-Asiatic").
>>329718
Shut up
https://books.google.com/books?id=LIo_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&dq=belgians+tutsi+classification&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXs5aDqrjJAhWBGT4KHSFwD2AQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>328081
You can a have nation with a lot of diverse ethnic groups that's largely peaceful. However, the country cannot have a highly centralized government. India is a good example of this. Its states - which are ethnically different from one another - have a lot of powers. A highly decentralized government has its drawbacks as well.
>>328054
It should have happened.
>>332269
Sucks for them. No body deserves anything they can't take by the gun
>>332269
Please stop.
Biafra was too good for this sinful earth.
>>332269
Biafra definitely should have happened. The wiki article on Biafra is full of shit though
>>328054
Dont know about the rest, but the 8 main groups in Botswana actually represent the 7 main Tswana tribes. They speak the same language (dialects though) and have the same mode of living so for all intents and purposes they can be accounted as one and the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntlo_ya_Dikgosi
>>328054
One of the most violent places in Africa, Somalia, has a largely homogenous population and most of its territory was never colonized by any european country. Make of that what you will.
>>332587
Fuck I meant in Botswana unless you are Tswana or white then you will come up with racism mainly in the form government favoring Tswana and whites.
>>332557
>Most of it's territory was never colonized
What? The area that is now Somaliland was held by the British while the rest by the Italians.
>>332557
Somalia was never unified, clans made different states and the Italians unified them by force.
>>332738
>Somalia is not violent at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf0h24ii7XY
Anon, even Congo managed to calm down after 2003
>>332587
>Would you allow the seccession of the area in your country with the most resources?
Yes, of course. The bongoloids jewed us out of the area with the most industry and we ended up richer and better than that bit, so these things aren't set in stone.
>>332763
>Expelling childish outlanders
It's dangerous for disgusting foreigners. As a Somali I'm pretty safe there.
>>332763
Lol no Congo is fucking unsafe as hell!
Both DRC and CAR except the safe zones like the capitals.
>>332587
It would have made a better proxy for the Brits than the Nigerian government, which was already dealing heavily with the Soviets
