Europe and Africa

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Africa was hardly an unchanged society in the 1870s, by then contact with the Europeans (and I don't just mean the Slave Trade here) had changed the nature of the continent drastically. There is no reason to think that had Europe 'left it alone'*, it would at all like it did in 1870 now (of course, in this alternative timeline, it would look even less like it does in RL, for a start there would be millions of people who we call "Sudanese", "Congolese", "Gabonese", "Namibian" living than is currently the case).

* (Of course, what do you mean by that?)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Africa was hardly an unchanged society in the 1870s, by then contact with the Europeans (and I don't just mean the Slave Trade here) had changed the nature of the continent drastically. There is no reason to think that had Europe 'left it alone'*, it would at all like it did in 1870.

* (Of course, what do you mean by that?)

Who said anything about "it would look like 1870"? It obviously would not. The interesting thing is how the continent would have developed without conquest and colonization. No one is making a case for total isolation, that would be ludicrous.

Left it alone= not colonized it

The point was partly to pre-empt the common notions of pre-colonial Africa. Of course by 1870 there was British Cape Colony (whose white population was of majority Dutch descent and had moved much further into interior), French Algeria and all those coastal forts that had been left behind from the days of the slave trade which nobody was quite sure what to do with. Also strong (and by then a few centuries old in places) Portuguese presence in certain parts. Though at this place the Congo "Free State" was still a notion in a megalo-and-mono-maniacs perverse ramblings, taken seriously by none.

But what "not colonize" really mean in this context?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Firstly I observe that, if European states hadn't seized up Africa, much of it would probably have been seized up by a coalition of corporations and slavers instead. We got a prelude of what that looks like with the Congo company and the Saharan/East African slaver states... I have no doubt that most uncolonized African land would have ended up slaver/corporation territory instead, because most of Africa lacked state or social institutions capable of resisting them. And I feel certain that such slaver/corporate governments would be even worse then colonial/post-colonial regimes.

Secondly I observe that Ethiopia, which was never colonized, is one of the sh**ttiest states in Africa. It was briefly occupied as Italy, but I don't see that as long enough to constitute true colonialism, especially since the Italians did less damage then the Germans/Japanese did in much of the territory that they occupied. Hell the Italians unintentionally knocked off slavery and made it easier for the Ethiopian emperor to launch progressive reforms upon his return to power, so a case might be made that Italian occupation rendered Ethiopia better off.

Thirdly I observe that other comparatively "natural" states in Africa- Somalia and Swaziland being the clearest examples- are doing badly even by the standards of Africa as well.

Fourthly I observe that the population has boomed since European colonialism. That is not because Africa's birthrate has increased(they didn't have birth control prior to Europeans, whereas now they do)... it is because the carrying capacity of Africa has increased due to European agriculture and imports, and because life expectancy has increased due to Euro technology and medicine. Think about that.... it's not that the birthrate increased, its that more Africans lived long enough to have their own kids.

So I'm on the fence on whether to call colonialism a good thing or not. Phrase it as "less awful then the alternative", and I'll go with that.

First of those is more or less what happened anyway... What else was Rhodesia?