We had a thread a few days ago, and there were actually some pretty interesting things posted in it. Let's see if we can get some more.
> Liberia
> Never colonized
American whitewashing, everyone.
>>536378
Did the French just decide to abandon most of their African holdings in 1960?
>>536383
More like blackwashing.
>It was colonized by African-Americans so it doesn't count!
>>536383
It also forgets to Mention that Namibia was colonized by South Africa for far longer than it was by Germany so I think it's just including European colonial powers.
>>536385
I don't know exactly what happened, but it seems France and Belgium just decided to call the whole thing quits indescriminately in 1960.
Which would probably explain why many of the absolute worst countries on Earth, CAR, DRC, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, were all given their independence in that year, it might not have been entirely thought out.
Fuck. I don't think I ever realized that literally the entire continent was colonized.
>>536385
This >>536399, but also they did try to hold onto Algeria, since it was legally part of France-proper. Of course, since it was also basically French Rhodesia, where the natives could become French citizens only if they renounced their Islamic ways e.g. abandoning Sharia in favour of French civil law, that didn't go too well. The shear number and confusing arrangement of factions in the struggle makes it a very interesting area of study though.
This was posted in the last thread, and although it's long, it's also damn fascinating.
http://www.theatlantic.com/ideastour/archive/kaplan.html
>>536402
You think those nice straight lines just drew themselves up?
>>536402
I'm just amazed there's a lake there that's literally bigger than some countries.
>>536437
And those lines are one of the reasons for instability in Africa. We need to start over.
>>536443
Lake Victoria, and lake Malawi, lad
If anybody's a fan of old maps, here's some maps road/tourist maps of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
http://www.greatnorthroad.org/maps/
The Federation is actually a fascinating case , since it was set up by the Brits in the 1950s, as it was becoming clear that Europeans were leaving or planning to leave Africa. If I remember correctly, because of the clusterfuck of colonies that it contained, it ended up having something like seven different bodies responsible for its governance.
>>536383
The American state didn't have much to do with it though, and pretty soon saw it as an embarrassment. It wasn't even protectorate-tier in terms of American involvement.
>>536383
>EUROPEAN COLONIZATION
wow, I never new America is a European nation!
>>536378
The map is misleading, as it only shows the 'last snapshot' at independence, which doesn't tell the whole story.
Most of East Africa was semi-colonized by Arabs centuries before the Europeans showed up. Madagascar was ruled by an Indonesian-origin elite before Europeans showed up. Of course the Ottomans controlled most of North Africa for centuries, if only loosely. Egypt wasn't a direct colony, but a 'protectorate'.
As another anon mentioned, Liberia was basically an American fiefdom, and planting former American slaves was never popular with the locals. Sierra Leone was the same story, but done by the British.
Namibia was also a puppet state of South Africa until the early 90s, whereas that map implies Germany was it's imperial master until only 26 years ago. After a brief period of bloody and failed 'attempted rule', the Germans left in 1918.
>>536399
Try reading a history book. Anti-colonial independence movements were very strong after the WW2, it just took that long to become official. In a lot of ways, France and Britain also caused a lot of spiteful chaos in the aftermath. There was a problem with inept violent rulers to be sure, and a lack of enough talented bureaucracy, but these were often exacerbated by the former colonial rulers themselves.
>>536443
Never looked at a map of North America?...
>>536588
>France and Britain also caused a lot of spiteful chaos in the aftermath
I can easily say this about the Belgians and French (although they basically treated the independent countries as though they were still theirs), maybe even the Portuguese, but I think the problems with British decolonisation were just shear incompetence.
>>536604
I know for a fact that the British supplied plenty of weapons in the Biafran civil war, escalating that conflict grossly, so they aren't without their share of blame.
>>536604
Well, Ghana for example was a model post-independence country for the first 10 years or so.
The Cold War was also in full swing, so it was relatively easy for any rebel group to get crates of AK-47s and RPGs from the soviets, as long as they made vague promises of aligning with Moscow (most didn't really care so deeply, they just wanted weapons). Because of that, western powers were willing to give crates of weapons to yet other rebel groups. Repeat ad nauseum.
>>536629
>Because of that, western powers were willing to give crates of weapons to yet other rebel groups.
Oh those poor Westerners, forced to support military and paramilitary groups because of Soviet interventionism. Thank God the Cold War ended so they don't need to support rebel groups anymore.
>>536632
There was specifically spite as well though. Most post-colonial countries had to agree to large taxes paid back to the 'motherland' for the privilege of trading rights and not destroying the infrastructure, etc. (This was an especially French tactic, but others did it too).
Later on, the Cold War power playing ramped up in the 70s and 80s.
>>536559
Abraham Lincoln was the most important backer of the movement. George Washington's nephew was also part of the American Colonization Society, and was it's first president.
But of course Abraham Lincoln got shot so it stopped sounding like a good idea and only got a tiny bit of congressional attention. The original idea of "Ship all the negroes back, then teach them to govern" turned into "Dump a few thousands negroes there and let them do whatever, that's all we have money for".
It suffered badly from a lack of funding and the Democrats being hostile to the notion as they still wanted to use Blacks for cheap labor/slavery.
>>536619
Britain support Nigeria who were the legitimate government established by the British not long earlier.
France on the other hand were supporting both sides in an effort to diminish Britain's base of influence in West Africa.
>>536378
Why did Germany colonize so little?
>>536655
Because Otto Von Bismark thought worldwide colonialism was a waste of time and resources so the Germans wound up being very late to the scramble for Africa.
>>536655
They colonized a lot more, other Imperial powers just stole their colonies after WWI and WWII.
>>536665
They had plans for a lot more too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelafrika
>>536665
>warsaw was German
>>536682
It was, during the Napoleonic wars Prussia occupied basically all of modern day Poland.
However that's not what the map is showing, the map just has badly drawn borders.
>>536649
>Abraham Lincoln was the most important backer of the movement
But as a progressive individual, who admittedly had pull in DC, not as an agent of the state. Same goes for Wahington's nephew. The American Colonization Society was not a government ministry.
>>536665
>Klein-Venedig
So that's where Don Rosa got the inspiration for that one Duck story. I always wondered about early modern Germans in South America.
There's a fascinating theory I read somewhere, but can't remember where I read it now, that tried to explain African political instability. Basically, the fact that African states are so resource rich but poor in human and capital natural resources disconnects the power of the government from local populations. You see, in a normal state the government gets resources largely through taxation. This means that the government has to have a certain level of concern for the populace, insofar the populace needs to be cultivated for tax revenue. However, in poor but resource rich states, power is instead derived from controlling the natural resources, whilst the local population represents more of a threat. State power is exercised in different ways, with a developed state's authority being moderate but omnipresent, whilst developing states are brutal but intermittent.
>>536751
That's both compelling and disheartening, since most if not all of these countries will be stuck in the middle income trap and nothing will change in the style of government.
>>536446
The problem was how rushed decolonization was.
>>536655
Because Germany (Prussia) itself coalesced very late in the European game. After unifying, they did make some grumblings and France and England gave them a few under-used spots to appease them. They held these toys for barely 20 years before being taken back by France and Britain post-WW1.
>>536782
Or how shitty colonization was implemented. Natives had almost absolutely no role in running these client states. Some military, some low-level bureaucrats, that's it.
>>536824
>>536782
Actually, the role of the natives is an important part to understanding why decolonisation fucked up.
You see, when these areas were colonized, the process mostly involved a column of troops who would go to each village or minor kingdom, and beg, bribe or bully the local rulers into accepting European over-lordship. This is not to say it wasn't brutal, since those who refused had to be brought into line in some way, but by and large local African rulers much of their authority. This was due to cost, particularly in the less valuable colonies, as administration is expensive, so you would often have a colonial official with a handful of African levys 'ruling' over tens of thousands of native Africans, where the real day to day authority was exercised by traditional rulers.
The problem came with decolonization. Basically, the European colonies were never true states in the first place, even while under European rule. When it came to independence, the first wave of the new African rulers wanted to modernize their nations, including the government structures. But the problem was, they had no expertise; in 1960 in the entire Belgian Congo there were something like 16 university graduates in the entire country, not enough to run a proper administration. Not to mention the fact that attacking traditional power structures turned those power groups against you. Having said that, the more conservative African states hardly fared that much better so its difficult to say.
Ultimately, with the centre lacking authority power shifted to those groups that were the most organised, usually the army, or some particular ethnic group.
>>536782
Good luck going slow though with the native elite going gibsmedat independence, the leftists at home whining about it, and the money running out fast.
>>536824
>Because Germany (Prussia) itself coalesced very late in the European game. After unifying, they did make some grumblings and France and England gave them a few under-used spots to appease them. They held these toys for barely 20 years before being taken back by France and Britain post-WW1.
That's some Eternal Anglo-tier dismissiveness and generalisation
>>536741
>Don Rosa
my nigga
>>536873
This is not a bad analysis, but you should incorporate more of this concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_state
>>536378
Shouldn't Ethiopia be red?
>>537088
It was much more a military occupation than what happened in other places. They also didn't have the time/resources to gain anything from holding onto it.
>>537072
Redrawing the borders would probably help with this. Good luck getting the entrenched elites or Western and East Asian globalists to agree to this though.
>>537518
I don't think it's even necessary to redraw the borders, mostly they need to increase urbanization and develop a few cities as regional capitals. Devolution is also a good alternative.
Easier said than done obviously.
>Good luck getting the entrenched elites or Western and East Asian globalists to agree to this though.
I do think that's the main problem.
Related:
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/tutsi-empire-interrupted/
>>537585
>mostly they need to increase urbanization and develop a few cities as regional capitals
Have a read of >>536435. He basically posits that this is sort of already happening in West Africa, but when coupled with political instability inherent in these multiethnic states, as well as rapidly worsening environmental problems, West Africa is headed towards a similar existance as it had before the Scramble started i.e. a few coastal trading ports and an impenetrable and outright dangerous interior.
>>536378
>implying Namibia got its independence from Germany in 1990
This image is misleading as fuck
>>536665
>stole
>>536655
Holy fucking shit, seriously? Have you never taken a history course?
I'm actually offended that somebody on /his/ is this ignorant about the fundamentals of world history.
As a brief crash-course, Germany did not exist until the 1870s. Until then, various states vied for control of the region. Due to their location on the Baltic and the North Sea, Germany has little way to reach the Americas or Africa.
The reason France, Spain, Portugal, and Britain were such great colonizers was because they were able to field massive navies to sail across the Atlantic.
By the time Germany was a unified state, most of Africa was already colonized. They didn't want to be too aggressive with their colonization, because Germany was bordered by France and Russia, two more powerful countries.
>Yfw Poland tried to colonize Gambia
They might have done it too, if it wasn't for perfidious Sweden and Muscovy.
I read a book on African state formation and power structures a while back which was pretty interesting. The basic thesis was that European states traditionally existed in a high population, limited territory environment which encouraged them to value land control highly and place military assets on their hinterlands and frontiers. African states pre-colonisation existed in a low population, plentiful land environment, which meant that power was more about controlling people, and seen as radiating vaguely outwards from a central point - when an Arab explorer asked an African king to draw a map of his kingdom for example, rather than drawing borders around territory, he drew a series of concentric circles - the inner ring being under direct taxation and control, the next one being tributary and so on...
>>538282
Colonisation changed this only superficially, power radiating from coastal areas, and then independance, drawing arbitrary borders over different ethinic groups.
This is where it gets intresting, because the writer argued that 'African borders mean nothing it's all tribal' was a complete meme - on the contrary, borders have defined African states far more than they have European ones. Crucially, the basic agreement of most African leaders to respect each others territorial integrity (only a few exceptions, somalia for example) has created an environment very forgiving towards weak states. In early modern Europe, a weak state incapable of defending itself would be swallowed up pretty quickly (PLC is a perfect example), whilst the relative lack of interest in territorial control of African leaders means weak states continue to survive with little incentive to improve their bureaucratic control over hinterland regions. An example mentioned earlier in this thread is African state income, which is derived not from income tax that would create a social bond between ruler and ruled, but from material resources and crucially, indirect taxation in the form of tarrifs, once again linked to the secure nature of state borders
>>538197
>By the time Germany was a unified state, most of Africa was already colonized
This is also wrong though. Only South Africa and strips and bits along the coast were.
>>537000
I am German, no angloboo, but it is basically how it happened. Germans wouldn't have had anything had they not been given some (allowed to buy, or develop hitherto hostile and ignored marginal territories) some. The Kaiser wasn't much interested in colonies. Hanseatic cities of Bremen and Hamburg had developed some trade outposts in the South Pacific, Cameroon, and 'mainland' Zanzibar (mainland Tanganyika/Tanzania) by the 1890s, but these were hardly "colonies".
In a series of treaties where Germany was very much the party holding fewer bargaining chips, Britain agreed to allow a German sphere of influence over some areas no one much cared about. They swapped a few territories, too.
>>536402
You must be new to history friend, the scramble for Africa is such a well known event it's even taught in American schools
>>538360
A better word might be 'claimed', as most of it was claimed, if not thoroughly controlled. Certainly, very little of Africa was colonized, or even attempted to be colonized by the 1880s (as in settlers from the metropole moving en masse and starting new lives in the colony). This happened, but apart from South Africa and a few cities here and there for control, it never occurred on a large scale. The Portuguese were probably the most earnest about actually colonizing the land, most European powers were just focussed on resource extraction using the locals.
>>538182
"Requested at gunpoint", then. Just because they did the same to the natives doesn't change the nature of the ownership transfer.
>>538387
Well now you're going in the other direction, by making the Berlin Conference all about Germany. Bear in mind that at the time it was signed >>538360 was the situation in terms of African colonisation. It was as much to clearly outline areas of influence, borders, trade and movement rights and such between all Europeans, so that they could get to it as cleanly as possible and not risk a European war while doing so.
>>536873
Agree that this is part of the picture, but it falls into the trap that Africa was unprepared for independence in strictly negative terms, rather then looking at the 'positive' aspects of being unprepared. I.E. The ways colonialism had sabotaged the capacity for self-rule.
Your description of the way Africa was ruled is fundamentally correct. But the way European states prepared African states for 'self rule' was basically to do the process themselves.
>a column of troops who would go to each village or minor kingdom, and beg, bribe or bully the local rulers into accepting General [Whoever the fuck]'s over-lordship
Describes African states in the post-colonial era. The armies were the most organised, because they recieved the most attention, and this process also disorganized any existing institution.
It should be remembered that these column of troops begging, bribing or bullying didn't care much for any local rule of law, system of property ownership, decentralization of power, local rights, etc. etc.
All those things simply got in the way and of the authority of the Colonial Officials, and had the danger of involving them in the matter of actually 'ruling.'
Preparations for decolonization, where they were, consisted of trying to replace the colonial officials with some Africans, and getting the column of troops better armed, or if we were really ambitious, partially mobilized.
Decolonization, as it happened, happened not because the Europeans suddenly grew consciences about this, but because the process was no longer working. If they had managed to sustain it through brute force longer, the problems would have only been exacerbated, as they continue to 'streamline' governance, and bring more of the bush under the suzerainty of these troops.
>>538421
How am I saying that at all. I said Germany was holding the fewest bargaining chips.
"colonization", especially if you're thinking of it literally, is really the wrong word.
Germany was most certainly decades behind the others. But the others also had little interest in anything but resource extraction. As I said, apart from South Africa, really only the Portuguese territories saw any considerable European settlement, and almost all of the Porkchops went back by the 1970s at the latest. Until the diamond rush, South Africa was a few Dutch coastal towns and forts, and autonomous Boer hinterland.
Colour-coded zones on a map doesn't mean they actually controlled it, but nonetheless in most cases, German would-be imperialists had fewer starting tiles to choose from.
>>536378
Why the fuck don't they teach African colonization in school? Just plain old Eurocentrism?
>>538360
Absolutely not.
By 1870, Europeans had essentially taken all that they could. Somalia and Madagascar were the only unclaimed areas which Europeans could easily control.
>>538154
Agreed.
>>538972
Depends where you live.
Here in South Africa, it's part of the curriculum.
>>538986
But later on Madagascar and Somalia got owned.
>>538972
History is one of the first subjects to be on the chopping block.
Also it's very hard to deliver a comprehensive curriculum that covers a sufficient amount within the limited time.
>>536652
why would frogs try and combat limes power in the mid 20th century when they're both NATO members and huge trading partners
>>536378
>Zimbabwe
>1965
Decolonization was too hasty, the soviets immediately moved in and started arming warlords.
>>539549
That's when it became independent.
White rule didn't end until 1980.
>>536378
>wait, so Namibia was German until 1990? How did that work out under the Nazis and later west and east germany divide?
>>536649
its also worth noting that the liberian senate was built to mimic the prewar US senate where slave states and free states held an equal number of seats. So in Liberia former slave territories would hold an equal number of seats to native territories despite former slaves making up only 1/10 of the population.
Certainly a recipe for stability.
>>539589
Thing was that there was no ideal time or speed
>>536378
>Namibia
>1990
>>539813
I think you mean the House of Representatives, as the senate is population based (you would do well to remember following the civil war the senate was almost dominated by the South until the yanks decided former slaves didn't count as whole people)
>>539845
From South Africa, dog.
>>538986
That's a whole lot of area that isn't properly delineated. It sure as hell isn't just scraps either
>>539549
